On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 10:33:22PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > 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 > | .... You misread the mail. It says (stable-)proposed-updates, not -updates. > 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) It says proposed-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. No it's not. You're ignoring the `proposed-' in the output and then conclude it's something different. I might go with the proposed- vs. stable-proposed- being confused, and I don't really know where that's coming from. > Question is what path package goes through and delay for each step. Are > stable-updates and stable-proposed-updates the same thing with different > alias? No, it's not. > If I trust: > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/pkgs.html#upload-stable devref doesn't know about stable-updates yet. > "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? Nothing to explain as above. Apart from that I refer to the announcement of squeeze-updates and my last mail. > > [*] 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. True. Kind regards Philipp Kern
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature