Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:14:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:23:48 +0900, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> said:
>
> > And why not, instead of freezing unstable, make it build against
> > testing, when er try to freeze testing ?
>
> Libraries. If you build against a library version that is no
> longer in unstable, then you may have issues in testing when a new
> library tries to migrate into testing -- cause nowhere would there be
> packages built against the new library version.
I don't see the point. If you build against what is in testing, there's
no issue when migrating to testing.
One particular issue would be when libraries change ABI, and new
packages would need to be built against them, but still, at that
particular time, the purpose being mainly to freeze testing, these
ABI changes should be candidates for experimental.
> Not to mention that unstable would become unviable as a
> distribution -- the run time libs may not be the ones that are needed
> by the packages in unstable.
At that particular time, isn't frozen-testing the one that is supposed
to be a distribution ?
> > Okay, that's what t-p-u is roughly for, but the fact is that it's
> > quite painful.
>
> Could you elaborate on that? Why is it so painful?
On top of the problems mentionned by the other replies, the fact that
autobuilders have to be set up for t-p-u... can you remind me how long
sarge has been planned for freeze ? and for how long autobuilders are
required for alpha and mips for t-p-u ?
Mike
Reply to: