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

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

Anthony Towns wrote:
> >The "stabilise" is the missing part in the proposal. Stabilization and
> >security would need to be done outside Debian.
> From the announcement:
> ---
> Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
> are not going to be left out in the cold.  The SCC infrastructure is
> intended as a long-term option for these other architectures, and the
> ftpmasters also intend to provide porter teams with the option of
> releasing periodic (or not-so-periodic) per-architecture snapshots of
> unstable.
> ---
> What that actually means is that when porters want to stabilise, they'll 
> be able to simply stop autobuilding unstable, fix any remaining problems 
> that are a major concern, and request a snapshot be done. That'll result 
> in a new "snapshot-20050732/main/binary-foo" tree

How is arch:all handled in this scenario? Does the snapshot include
them as well?

> matching the work in unstable and a corresponding source tree;

Is it possible to alter snapshot source packages in order to fix
rmeaining bugs?

> at which point CDs/DVDs can be 
> burnt from the snapshot, and unstable development can continue. That 
> tree will persist for a while, depending on how much archive space it 
> takes up.

At least one known good (and not too old) snapshot needs to stay around,
otherwise it isn't possible to re-create a buildd chroot from official
debian packages when unstable breaks severly.


Reply to: