Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
Uoti Urpala dijo [Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:12:46AM +0300]:
> No, that's not what I'm saying. But I think the release team is
> primarily responsible for the policies that harm the work other
> maintainers do on unstable.
> A release must not be the only goal for package maintainers, and IMO it
> should not be an overriding one either. Distributions that make latest
> software available are necessary for free software development. It's not
> responsible for Debian to say "development of new software should happen
> on a distro like Arch, we'll just use the results". And Debian is too
> big to be just for people that care about releases only
We Debian Developers might be backwards-thinking sometimes, and the
release process is surely not perfect. It is, however, one thing we
have agreed upon (although we keep working on it and trying to perfect
it) over many years.
It might be bad manners for me to put it this way: Your mail, although
it points out several issues (we are aware of them in the most obvious
ways: We work inside them!), lacks the knowledge of what has happened
and led to Debian to choose the procedures it has chosen.
Do you want to impact Debian's way of working? Great! We are always
short on manpower. But, often, getting *really* involved will explain
you some situations better than a long rant on a mailing list.
Please, do get involved in Debian. Do help us make things better. Do
point out at what is broken. You can even become part of Wheezy+1's