[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: >2000 packages still waiting to enter testing, > 1500 over age

On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:05:59PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 09:33:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Well, i personnaly think that in some case it would be much simpler to
> > > _remove_ the packages from testing, and let the new versions enter
> > > testing as they can. 
> > Yes, this generally happens. It's not really a good thing though -- it
> > screws up people who are using / relying on the packages being removed;
> > they'll get complaints from apt-get every time they try to upgrade until
> > things get cleaned up. cf libc6 and php recently, eg.
> Yes, this is the general case, and i fully understand this.
> But in the particular case, the two blocking packages are really seldom
> used (two developpment packages only) and most people don't use the
> ocaml 3.04 that is in testing, but ocaml 3.06 backports.
> I think this is one of the cases where the maintainer has more idea of
> what is going on than the release manager, 

Considering the release manager hasn't looked at it in any detail at all,
that seems like a reasonable conclusion. Which package/s is it okay to
drop for ocaml?

The "upload to testing-proposed-updates" thing people have mentioned in
this thread works too, although each uploaded source packages needs an
explicit approval from the RM (or similar) to get in in that case, which
we're not really doing at the moment.

> That said, the real question is what testing is for :
>   o To help prepare the next release, in which case we should remove
>     conflicting packages.
>   o So people can test the next release without being subject to random
>     unstable breakage. In this case, we should not remove the
>     conflicting packages.

It's for both. Which is to say "we should remove the conflicting packages,
but only as a last resort".


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Attachment: pgp_lNz9fYuJ4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: