Re: glibc_2.3.6-7_i386.changes REJECTED
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 12:37:20PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 03:03:31AM -0700, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > Hi maintainers,
> >
> > Sorry, but I'm going to reject this package.
> >
> > 1) You're adding a new package directly to unstable, instead of first to
> > experimental.
>
> Is it a new requirement? I wasn't aware of that.
It isn't a requirement, but something I'd strongly advice for such an
important package like glibc. Anyway, this certainly wasn't the
strongest reason to reject, and I might not have rejected it if the
other 3 points didn't exist.
> More seriously, I can understand that for libc-bin, but not for package
> that you are not obliged to install.
>
> I plan to add libc6-mipsn32 and libc6-mipsn64 soon. Should they also go
> thru experimental first?
As long as glibc is out of sync unstable vs testing and there are
multiple RC bugs in unstable, definitely. Currently amd64 in testing is
blocking on glibc being out of sync, so we'd really like to get glibc
into a testing-worthy version as soon as possible.
I don't have a strong opinion on this otherwise, it's more like "not to
unstable right now, in this form" than "must be to experimental first",
also taking into account the other issues you list with using
experimental for this.
I hope this clarifies my position adequately.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: