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

Re: NEW processing during freezes (Was: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)


On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:06:03PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
>    True. But most of the packages that currently are on top of the NEW queue
>    would have introduced transitions if FTP Team blindly had accepted them,
>    and we agreed with Release Team to keep them in the queue to avoid
>    potential breakages, given that at the time we just entered the Wheezy
>    freeze. We sent emails to maintainers to inform them about the reasons

True for unstable, not for experimental, Because stuff uploading to experimental
can cause a transition if uploaded to unstable, yes - for *jessie*.
Of course if mallicous or careless maintainers uploaded to unstable.. *shrugs*

>    behind the delay, and we offered to accept packages targeted to
>    experimental instead. I think this is a good approach. Some other packages
>    are stuck in the queue pending an answer from their maintainers about some
>    concerns FTP Team raised. There's little FTP Team can do other than wait
>    for actions from maintainers.

I understand that, *if* comments were needed. But that's not the case always.

Some were stuck there and gor rejedted after 2 months. That specific
exmple was needed to make a transition which *will* happen in jessie
_less painless_.

And this isn't a explanation for *completely new*, (and thus no r-deps,
thus no transition) packages.

(And no, I didn't get a comment.)

>    On the other hand, FTP Team is willing to fast-track NEW packages anytime,
>    if needed. Asking for a pacakge acceptance in #debian-ftp is always worth
>    it, and rarely these requests are not taken into consideration (as it
>    happened for some gcc/clang packages, or GNOME ones). If you need actions
>    from FTP Team, feel free to talk to us and we will be happy to help you.
>    Cheers,

I know, and afaicr I went this way (or /query ansgar), too and I am very
grateful for that.

It's more cumbersome than it needs to be, though.



Reply to: