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

Re: Re Re Xemacs needs help

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:33:49 -0800, Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> said: 

> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:41:45 -0800, Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org>
>> said:
>>> Jérôme Marant <jmarant@free.fr> writes:
>>>> Quoting Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org>:
>>>>> > BTW, Miles, I have prepared a package dedicated at Emacs CVS
>>>>> > snapshots.  What distribution do you think it would fit the
>>>>> > best?:
>>>>> > - unstable
>>>>> > - experimental
>>>>> > - none of the above, a stagging area would be better
>>>>> Keep in mind that anything uploaded to unstable really should be
>>>>> fit for a stable Debian release (IMO anyway).
>>>> RC bugs prevent packages to enter testing.
>>> And that's an ugly kludge that should be used minimally and only
>>> temporarily (again IMO).
>> Eh? How's it a kludge when it is in the definition of the Serious
>> severity?
>> serious is a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, it
>> violates a "must" or "required" directive), or, in the package
>> maintainer's opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release.
>> This severity is *designed* to allow packages to live in unstable
>> that should not yet go into testing.

> Yes, but I don't think any package in unstable should ever be
> permanently not fit for testing (temporary unsuitability is norma

	Do you have a reason, or is this mere personal opinion? If
 indeed you happen to have a technical reason, please share.

> and often unavoidable).  A package should *never* have an RC bug
> open for a significant amount of time.  If it does, it does not
> belong in unstable.

	I beg to differ. I would much rather have a CVS version
 available, and auto-built for all arches, even if it is not suitable
 for release. It allows for wider testing of upstream releases, and
 helps improve the quality of software that shall go into testing. 

> All I'm trying to say is that if Emacs CVS snapshots are uploaded to
> unstable, it should be done with the intention of releasing it in a
> stable Debian release.

	And I say that it is perfectly fine to help in emacs
 development by exposing emacs-cvs to the users of unstable, as long
 as there is no confusion that this is not the emacs21 package, and
 that it never ever enter testing.

	So far, all I have heard is hand waving and opinions, with
 no technical justification.

It is a poor judge who cannot award a prize.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: