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

Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation

Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 16:20 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : 
> A full suite can have 2 versions of the same source package and
> can contain both libgnomekbd4 and libgnomekbd7. It's not a problem.

OK, so I officially do not care a shit™.

> > What the britney-like thing could do is bring automatically all
> > dependencies that are actually necessary for the package to be
> > installable. But this could also make things more complicated, since
> > britney tests source packages, not binaries. You might bring a source in
> > rolling only for a runtime that is needed, but the development header
> > being uninstallable is not a problem. Britney would prevent that, while
> > it would still be a good move.
> Yes, we could try to improve britney towards this.
> But I'm not sure it's a good idea to pick only some binary packages from a
> source package. It happens often enough that the package lack a strict
> dependency that might be required and picking all the binaries from a
> source package limits the risk of upgrading them separately (and thus
> experiencing the bug).

Indeed. The appropriate result to obtain would be something like: “the
list of source packages you need to pull for a given binary package to
be installable”.

> > I’m not entirely sure, but I think it’s better to pick the update from
> > unstable instead of letting in rolling a package that is no longer
> > available somewhere else. It should make upgrades smoother, and it
> > should also be less work for maintainers, since it avoids having another
> > version from which problems can arise.
> In that case, those updates should follow the same rules than for testing
> itself. It would be unreasonable to accept the new unstable upload
> immediately.

I don’t think it would be entirely unreasonable, since we’re already in
the case of a specific package we had to pull from unstable, to expect
the maintainer to be careful enough. Don’t forget that we’re talking
about probably a dozen of packages at a given time.
Of course, having a delay before accepting the package seems sensible
too, so it’s not like I really care.


Reply to: