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

Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org



On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:27:41 +0900, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> said: 

> 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

	And you wouldn't ever be able to run unstable, so what's the
 point of having it if people don't test unstable?

> 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.

	In other words, stop all development dead, since experimental
 is never ever used as a default ditribution by anyone sane.


>> 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 ?

	If unstable is not a distribution, what the hell is the point
 of having all the paraphernalia of unstable around?  The whole point
 of uploading to unstable is to have people test packages in
 unstable. 

> 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 ?

	This is incorrect, t-p-u is indeed supported by buildds --
 though this paragraph seems to be more like a rant than anything
 else.

	manoj
-- 
Psychiatry is the care of the id by the odd.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C



Reply to: