Re: Why is only the latest unstable package considered for testing?
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 10:39:51AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 08:55:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:39:55PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 10:29:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Yes, but it is better than having our packages hold back by libvorbis
> > > > and the 105 or so packages that will be breaken by its inclusion in
> > > > testing, many of them have big RC bugs and such, and will not be
> > > > includable in testing for a long time.
> > >
> > > Could you please back your figures up with hard data? I was looking for
> > > libvorbis stuff to NMU and had a time finding some. clanlib-vorbis still
> > > needs porting though. I doubt we are talking about '105' packages
> > > though.
> >
> > Taken from yesterdays update_output.txt entry at :
> > http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_output.txt
> >
> > skipped: libvorbis (449+583)
> > got: 116+0: a-116
> > * alpha: adonthell, alsaplayer, alsaplayer-alsa,
> [...]
>
> I was not talking about the packages that are not transitioned into
> testing because of that. I was asking for a list of packages that
> *still* need recompile/porting/manual intervention. There's nothing we
> can do about lagging autobuilders at the moment. Anyway, I think I've
> seen such list edited by you in another mail.
Yes, but it is only partial, and i got it by starting from this list,
looking at each individual package in the PTS, and guessing a bit. I
believe that maybe the one which need rebuild are the ones i noted as OK
or valid candidates, since many of them where built before the new
libvorbis0a package. I am not really sure though, so you would have to
check those.
> > > And in the end, those packages are *already* included in testing, no?
> > > Just a/some version(s) behind.
> >
> > Well, i don't really care about those packages, it is just that this
> > will hold up any packages which depend on libvorbis (post 0a). I could
> > try rebuilding those packages with the testing libvorbis, but i doubt
> > out autobuilders will be happy if i ask them to autobuild on unstable +
> > the testing libvorbis.
>
> Well, they will ignore you.
As usual ...
It could be a nice solution to this kind of solution though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: