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

[Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:11:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 08:11:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I CCed you the bugreport where i explain everything, but the packages are :
> >   libpgsql-ocaml
> >   ocamlsdl
> > These are the source packages.
> 
> You missed:
>   ocaml-core |     3.06.3 |      unstable | all
>   ocaml-libs |     3.06.3 |      unstable | all
>   meta-ocaml |     3.06.3 |      unstable | source
> 
> Since ocaml-libs apparently breaks, this needs to go too.

Yes, since ocaml-libs depends on ocamlsdl, or more exactly
libsdl-ocaml-dev. I suppose it depends on some libpgsql-ocaml also.

Maybe Stefano could upload a version to testing-proposed-updates that
drops the these two libraries. It should be ok, since meta-ocaml is an
arch: all package, and don't needs the autobuilders.

> > > The "upload to testing-proposed-updates" [...]
> > No, it would not work, because you need to build them either with
> > testing + bit of unstable [...]
> 
> Interesting point; but yes, I didn't mean that it was a useful thing for
> this particular example.

I still think that being able to do that would be real usefull. Imagine
the problems we had with libc6. It would be much easier for a random
package to be rebuilt against testing to go to testing-proposed-updates
and thus enter testing normally, without having to wait 6 month or so
for the new libc6 to be ready. It is clear that the maintainer of this
random package doesn't have the skill to significantly contribute to
fixing libc6, and there may be a need to immediately make something
enter testing, for security reasons or such. Many users where not aware
that testing was less secure than either woody or unstable during these
times, but then maybe it is a question of communication.

It needs to be done on a case by case basis though.

> > Also, i think that the testing scripts don't consider
> > testing-proposed-updates right now, do they ?
> 
> Like I said, they need to be specifically approved. Grep for "NEEDS
> APPROVAL BY RM" in update_excuses.

A, ok.

> > Yes, on a case per case basis, after agreement of all the involved
> > maintainers and the RM. It is just as you didn't respond to my mail, nor
> > did any of the ftp master act on my bug report, nor did anyone even
> > aknowledge it, i felt abandoned ...
> 
> Yes; you were. I'm focussing on gcc and perl and such things at the
> moment, and as of yet no one else is really able to do anything about this
> stuff while I'm busy; hopefully both those things will change soon enough.

:)))

Friendly,

Sven Luther