Re: Serializing transitions
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> The BTS supports filing bugs against source packages, so you also
> file against the version of the source package. A FTBFS bug is now
> almost always reported against the source package, including binNMUs.
That's good for reporting FTBFS but users finding runtime problems on
packages will usually report bugs against the binary packages.
> I think one problem with this it will make transitions with many
> packages involved even harder that it is today, while I think
> that's not something we want to do.
> The problem is that some packages are not maintained anymore,
> don't work anymore with the new version, or whatever. The
> release team would then just remove (or break) some packages
> in testing, while you seems to want to make it impossible to
> even get in unstable.
The release team still decides when it considers a transition complete
enough to dump packages in unstable. I fully expect those criteria to take
testing into account, i.e. a transition can be considered complete when
all packages present in testing have been transitioned even if some
sid-only packages are still creating problems.
So I don't really share this concern.
> If it does break building, you obviouly want to upload a fixed
> package to experimental.
Not necessarily. In many cases, the fix could be uploaded to sid because
the fixed source package can build both in sid and in experimental.
> Anyway, I was thinking if it would be useful to have different
> experimentals and that you would need to upload it some new
> "transition" in experimental, like "experimental/libfoo5",
> so that people that want to use that can use that, instead
> of forcing it on everybody.
That's what I meant with dedicated "overlay repository".
Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/