Re: [PROPOSAL] Debian Release Plan
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 01:15:53PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> So you're saying bug #196564 should be downgraded then? I don't think
> that *possibly* causing a segfault in another package (it's not clear
> that it still does), on *one* architecture (m68k), when it's *probably*
> a toolchain issue, and the m68k people don't have the time or interest
> to reproduce it or track it down, should imply that the package is
> unreleasable!
It might mean that it can't be released on the affected architecture,
though.
> For that matter, I can't seriously believe that new XFree86 should not
> be released because of bugs which are pre-existing in old XFree86
> (#143825, #185936, #190323). This is actually a *very* common problem;
> a lot of RC bugs existed in older (released) versions, and so shouldn't
> be considered blocking if they happen to still be present in newer
> versions, but the 'testing' scripts don't realize this because the bugs
> weren't *reported* earlier. (Actually, rumor has it that there's a
> 'sarge-ignore' tag available now, which may do the right thing for
> supposedly RC bugs which shouldn't really block release; I don't know
> much about it though.)
Just to fend this off now, you should absolutely not use the
sarge-ignore tag without explicit authorization from the RM. I believe
that aj's going to be making some kind of announcement about this in the
near future anyway, though.
> Of course, there are already options individual maintainers can use to
> deal with such issues, such as declaring their packages to be non-m68k
> or non-s390 (for instance). Perhaps this should be used more
> aggressively. :-/
Changing the Architecture: line alone isn't enough; you have to get
somebody with appropriate access to change the Packages-arch-specific
file. Historically "Architecture: i386" was abused far too much, which
is why there's this extra step.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: