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

Re: debian experimental == ubuntu hoary?



Hi,

 I agree with Anand's POV.

 I think I have stated a couple of times that I dislike the kind of
 abuse of 'experimental' that the gnome packages do, mostly because it's
 working around problems with the 'testing' idea (a package can
 percolate from unstable to testing when it actually shouldn't because
 of unexpressed dependencies -- i.e. an actual bug in the package that
 can't be catch by the testing scripts).  Recently I realized that this
 is also working around the NEW queue problem: by staging packages _in_
 the archive (e.g. in experimental) you basically put a package in the
 queue for ftp-master's attention and by prodding some ftp-master (say,
 on IRC -- and this is a discussion by itself) you can skip ahead on
 that queue.

 What I'm saying is that I don't see an actual technical reason not to
 use a staging area *outside* the archive (say, alioth) since -- at
 least the last time I read about this -- experimental isn't
 autobuilded.  One could argue about mirrors, but my *feeling* is that
 the kind of people who are willing to use packages from experimental
 don't mind much about not having certain package mirrored.  I'll be
 delighted if someone comes up with transfer statistics that prove me
 wrong.

 I actually like your argument for piecemeal upgrades.  If the package
 interrelationships do not express a dependency, piecemeal upgrades
 should work.  If they don't, that's an RC bug by our own standards.

On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 12:31:15AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:

 > My criteria is (generally): has the maintainer released a version? If
 > I can't find a show-stopper, upload it.  I don't believe a "blessed"
 > set of packages should prevent the uploading of individual
 > components.

 The problem with GNOME and these criteria is that a good deal of GNOME
 is shipped as independent libraries at the filesystem level but
 dependent at the functional level, so dropping a new (ABI compatible!)
 release on top of an older installation might break stuff.  I have a
 vague recollection that fixing bugs in GTK+ has broken software that
 uses it.

 On top of all that, using Ubuntu as a staging area for Debian isn't one
 iota better.  Debian users shouldn't have to go cherry picking to
 Ubuntu's archive.  Solving Debian's problems *outside* Debian does not
 help Debian.  It's rather easy to figure that one out, isn't it?

 Marcelo



Reply to: