Re: GNOME 2.2 summary 22/06/2003
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 09:46:20PM +0200, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> But if the package info on packages.q.d.o says "package foobar is
> buggy (3 > 0), then, how else does it determine that it is the
> version in unstable that all 3 RC bugs apply to while the one in
> testing is not affected by any of them? Does the BTS keep track, to
> which version a bug report applies?
Last time I asked the answer to that was "it doesn't" or similar. The
situation might or might not have changed since then[0].
> About a year ago I saw real flamefests happening on this list
> concerning the piecemal Gnome transition in unstable. Now, I looks
> like very few people care about the poor picture of Gnome in testing,
> probably because no DD uses testing, which is quite natural. Still I
> think that what is happening now in testing is worse than what
> happened when Gnome 2 entered unstable.
That's offtopic for this list, but just as info, I stopped using
testing about a year ago, give or take some months. Previously I
*tried* using testing for about two years until the day when I became
clear that even if it sounds great on paper, in reality it's utterly
broken. It works on the assumption that things like the ones you
pointed out are going to be prevented by dependencies. I don't know
why having gnome-session 2.x and control center 1.4 installed at the
same time doesn't make sense, but I'll take your word for it. Is there
a technical reason why that shouldn't happen? Apparently not. Both
programs can be installed at the same time and apparently both programs
can run at the same time. Does gnome-session have some sort of
dependency on a newer release of the control center? If that's the
case it went unnoticed, because in _unstable_ the situation required
for someone to notice the problem was not possible. So a package with
missing dependencies filtered thru the cracks.
One of the biggest problems with testing is that the migration from
unstable to testing is unpredictable by design. Even if _right now_
package A could enter testing, it only takes someone uploading
something only slightly related to A to unstable and that could prevent
A from going in (say A depends on B which depends on C which is going
into testing, too, but the maintainer of C finds some free time to fix
a couple of bugs and makes an upload).
Is testing better than the previous situation? Can't say for sure. I
haven't really perceived any benefits. The RM surely disagrees.
-m.
Reply to: