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

Re: How to update developers-reference (Re: [SRM] upload of debian-reference/2.46 to stable)


I read developers-reference but what I am seeing is a bit dirrefent.

Read on....

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:26:01PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:36:30PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > stable-proposed-updates is defined as:
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/pkgs.html#upload-stable
> >  A) a truly critical functionality problem
> >  B) the package becomes uninstallable
> >  C) a released architecture lacks the package
> > 
> > stable-updates is defined as:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile-announce/2011/msg00000.html
> >  D) The update is urgent and not of a security nature.  Security updates
> >     will continue to be pushed through the security archive.  Examples
> >     include packages broken by the flow of time (c.f. spamassassin and
> >     the year 2010 problem) and fixes for bugs introduced by point
> >     releases.
> >  E) The package in question is a data package and the data must be updated
> >     in a timely manner (e.g. tzdata).
> >  F) Fixes to leaf packages that were broken by external changes (e.g.
> >     video downloading tools and tor).
> >  G) Packages that need to be current to be useful (e.g. clamav).
> > 
> > Here, I think A includes (D + E + G) in some way.  F is relaxing of A
> > qualification rule for leaf packages.  Are we removing A from
> > stable-proposed-updates? Basically stable-updates seems to be A with
> > relaxed qualification to be "critical functionality problem" but with
> > limitted applicable package types? 
> every package will enter stable-proposed-updates first.  Then, if it warrants
> an update outside of the normal point release cycle (and those are rare) it
> gets copied to squeeze-updates for public consumption.

Well, I just uploaded 2.46 to "stable" for debian-reference.  This seems to be
gone into stable-updates per some information I got as mail from Debian FTP
Masters as:
| Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:04:20 +0000
| From: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>
| To: Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>
| Subject: debian-reference_2.46_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into proposed-updates
| Notes:
| Mapping stable to proposed-updates.
| Accepted:
| debian-reference-common_2.46_all.deb
|   to main/d/debian-reference/debian-reference-common_2.46_all.deb
|   ....

I also see Debian web pages:
stable-updates          in http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=osamu@debian.org
  (mouse over 2.46 on debian-reference line gives stable-updates)

stable-proposed-updates in http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/debian-reference.html
  (left side list s-p-u as 2.46)

This is confusing.

> Transitively the rules for stable-proposed-updates got a bit more relaxed
> to fix up packages and keep them useful in stable if they're broken by
> outside influences not under our control.[*]  Previously those were updated
> through volatile.  Now they'll be fixed in stable instead if the fixes
> are self-contained and unlikely to cause any breakage in other packages.
> (Thus the reference to leaf packages.)
> I hope that clears it up.

This part is OK.

Question is what path package goes through and delay for each step.  Are
stable-updates and stable-proposed-updates the same thing with different
If I trust:

"stable upload" 
 -> "proposed-updates-new queue" 
   -> "stable-proposed-updates"
     -> (at next point release) stable

But what has happened is
"stable upload" 
 -> "??? queue" 
   -> "stable-updates"
     -> (I expect at next point release) stable

How do ypu explain this differences?
> [*] Release files are indeed under "our" control, so checksum fixes
>     wouldn't qualify per se (but there might be reasons to do them anyway).
>     Protocol changes in proprietary messengers that require an update would
>     qualify, though.

I assume you are talking checksum format change of Release files which
caused some archive tools to be broken.

Reply to: