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

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Scripsit Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

> For these reasons, I think the snapshotting approach is a better option,
> because it puts the package selection choices directly in the hands of
> the porters rather than trying to munge the existing testing scripts
> into something that will make reasonable package selections for you.

What is "the snapshotting approach"?  I understood the announcement
such that the lesser architectures are only ever allowed to have a
single version of each .deb distributed by the project, namely the
lastest one built at any given time.

I think that would be vastly to the non-benefit of such an
architecture's users, and I don't see how other architectures
can be harmed by allowing the lesser architectures to distribute
whatever .debs they manage to build corresponding to the official
testing and stable distributions.

Especially, if I somehow dug a Foomatic 664 with punched-tape main
memory out of a dumpster and wanted to run Debian on it (assuming
somebody had ported it), then for my own sanity I would like to have
to option of running the same software versions as I'm running on the
stable x86 box. If lesser architectures are _required_ to run the
bleeding edge, then Debian are significanly degrading the user
experience, and with no real gain that I can see.

> First, if they're not being kept in sync, it increases the number of
> matching source packages that we need to keep around (which, as has
> been discussed, is already a problem);

There could be a rule specifying that only versions that _are_ being
kept in sync can be in the archive, with some reasonable time limit to
let the arch build the newest version when it migrates to testing.

> second, if you want to update using the testing scripts, you either have
> to run a separate copy of britney for each arch (time consuming,
> resource-intensive)

But if the arch's porters are willing to do that, why shouldn't they
be allowed to?

> third, if failures on non-release archs are not release-critical
> bugs (which they're not), you don't have any sane measure of
> bugginess for britney to use in deciding which packages to keep out.

A lesser architecture's concept of testing could just be, "we're
trying our best to keep up with the package versions in the official
testing, regardless of bug counts".

Henning Makholm                   "Jeg mener, at der eksisterer et hemmeligt
                                 selskab med forgreninger i hele verden, som
                         arbejder i det skjulte for at udsprede det rygte at
                      der eksisterer en verdensomspændende sammensværgelse."

Reply to: