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

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 08:09:54AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Steve Langasek">

> > Anthony and Colin may have other concerns; I'll let them speak for
> > themselves.  For my own part, if you can address the above, I don't see
> > any reason why GNOME 2.6 can't be allowed into unstable.

> Aren't you guys in freeze? I think the right thing to do would be to suck up
> the damage and ship GNOME 2.4 in Sarge. Sure, that is not as cool and shiny,
> but being open to massive changes at this stage of the release cycle sounds
> like a recipe for disaster. I'm sure it's tempting to allow it because noone
> knows when the next Debian release will be, but in terms of risk management,
> it's a baaad idea (and that's coming from upstream).

We are explicitly not in a freeze right now, except where packages
affecting d-i (the base system) are concerned.

We do, however, have a timeline to freeze that leaves very little margin
for error if we find out *after* the upload of GNOME 2.6 that it's

Since the release team has not committed to allowing GNOME 2.6 into
sarge, it is therefore important to ensure the packages currently in
testing are considered acceptable, and that the upload to unstable won't
majorly impact other packages, so we can make that call when the time
comes.  Outside of these constraints, I'm not particularly keen on
dictating to the GNOME maintainers how to maintain their own packages.

>   * 2.4 is known to be good in testing

Based on this thread, there seem to be a few outstanding issues yet that
make this less than 100% true.

>   * Would subsequent changes in 2.6.1 hit sarge if 2.6 goes down now?

Not something that could be guaranteed; it's fairly certain the Debian
release wouldn't be delayed for it, unless RC bugs were discovered in
2.6 after it found its way into testing (and then we'd be cross).

>   * Surely we're somewhere near the end of the sarge release process? Why
>     would a huge number of new packages for a major component be accepted at
>     all?

Principally, because there's no clear reason to disallow it.  There will
absolutely be a lot of packages in unstable that are not present in
testing when we release, or present at different versions; there's
nothing wrong per se with having the GNOME packages among these, as long
as we don't get a lot of other packages wedged behind them.  As long as
the upload to unstable is clean, we can make a final decision on GNOME
2.6's inclusion closer to the freeze.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: