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

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:42:50AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:22:47AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > There was discussion in Vancouver about requiring ports to have an
> > "upstream" kernel maintainer, FSO "upstream"; perhaps we should be
> > considering requiring there to be a glibc/gcc/binutils upstream for each
> > port, so that we don't get the first sign of these bugs when the
> > packages hit unstable.

> What sort of q&a would upstream be doing that would help us out here?

Ideally, for each port there would be someone tracking glibc/gcc/binutils
upstream who's in a position to recognize when a change may cause
regressions for that port, and testing accordingly.

Next best is to have people who are making heavy use of updated versions of
these packages before they reach unstable; this should generally be fairly
straightforward, e.g. both gcc-4.0 and glibc 2.3.5 were in experimental for
a while before being uploaded to unstable, but the buildds are still doing a
lot of the work of catching regressions once they hit unstable, and by that
point the damage is done.

> Can the port teams do this kind of work themselves prior to packages
> hitting unstable?


Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: