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

problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Currently any time I want to update a package for Lenny it has to go through 
unstable and testing first.

If the Lenny freeze time was short this MIGHT be considered to be only a minor 
obstacle to development.  But as the freeze is getting longer and we have a 
GR which could make it a lot longer this seems like a significant problem.

If I upload a significantly newer version to unstable (which I would like to 
do for some of my packages as part of ongoing development that will lead to 
Lenny+1) then AKAIK there is no way to put a minor update in Lenny (unless I 
was to use an epoch change which would be horrible and might require changes 
to several other packages).

I think that we need a way to upload to Lenny without involving unstable.

I don't think that my suggestion is anything new, it is the practice on every 
other large software development project that I have seen which has been 
reasonably well run.

While changes to the processes for uploading new packages are probably not 
desirable when a freeze is starting, it seems that Lenny might be delayed for 
a while.  So if the GR on the Lenny release ends up actually changing 
anything then I suggest that we make some changes to prevent stalling all 

Failing that I will create my own repository for unstable versions of my 
packages - which of course won't give as good a result as most users of 
Unstable won't get them.

http://etbe.coker.com.au/          My Main Blog
http://doc.coker.com.au/           My Documents Blog

Reply to: