Re: GNOME 2.2 summary 22/06/2003
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 09:46:20PM +0200, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <fsmla@xinara.org> writes:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:49:06 +0200, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> >> Would this tell the testing scripts to pass through the newer version as
> >> both of them are equally buggy?
> >
> > I'm not sure if the scripts pick up on this yet,
>
> 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?
No (not yet anyway), but the testing scripts know what the
woody/sarge/sid tags mean and by and large do the right thing. In the
absence of tags, they base it on the date bugs were filed, and again
usually do the right thing; the worst case is that they'll think testing
isn't affected when it in fact is.
> It looks like that there is no such thing as a working strategy to
> ensure smooth upgrades of large package groups in testing and that
> such a strategy would be bitterly needed. Or maybe the testing scripts
> are not fully suited to cope with really large package groups like
> Gnome or KDE.
The testing scripts act on dependencies and conflicts found in packages.
If those dependencies and conflicts are not correct, then they aren't
guaranteed to do the right thing.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: