Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 09:15:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:57:14AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:10:00AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> > > As you know, the Debian GNOME team has been working on packaging
> > > GNOME 2.6 during the last weeks. While many of us didn't count on having
> > > them ready to opt for their inclussion in Sarge when we started, the
> > > situation has changed now that packages are judged to be at least
> > > unstable quality.
> At the moment, afaics, packages have only been uploaded to experimental
> for i386 and powerpc. Please make sure they're building on all
> architectures before even considering a major change like this.
Would be much easier if experimental was autobuilt.
> Second, the quality level you need to be thinking about for uploading
> to unstable isn't "unstable quality", it's "release quality". Are these
> packages suitable to form a basis for other developers' work? Are they
> reliable for everyday use? Have they been run through any automated
> test suites we have available (at a minimum building them in a
> pbuilder/autobuild environment) and are they reliably passing? If not,
> they're not release quality, so they're not "unstable" quality.
Well, what about using testing-proposed-update for 2.4 bugfix stuff ?
Mmm, won't do, because packages are built against sid.