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

Re: ghc6 6.12.3 and the transition freeze


Am Donnerstag, den 15.07.2010, 23:10 +0200 schrieb Mehdi Dogguy:
> On 07/15/2010 10:49 PM, Kari Pahula wrote:
> > Replying to debian-release too since they would have a thing or two to
> > say about this.
> > 
> Thanks!
> A haskell transition isn't something we could describe as "a small
> update", it would take at least two weeks to have it done. We prefer to not start such
> a transition at this stage. The freeze is approaching and we are working
> hard on getting *planned* transitions done in time. You should have raised
> your voice a bit earlier I'm afraid.

fair enough, I just wanted to have it discussed. 

> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:08:55PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> >> As I can see it currently, the state of haskell in testing is quite
> >> well. So if we’d upload ghc6-6.12.3 to unstable now and do _not_ make it
> >> in testing in time, there is not much of a loss. The only possible
> >> problem is if we do not make it to testing in time _and_ it turns out
> >> that we have to fix bugs in testing; then we would have to use
> >> testing-proposed-updates to fix those.
> > 
> t-p-u isn't made to finish half broken transitions.

That was not my suggestion. I was saying that if unstable is in a not
releasable state and the packages in testing require a fix (not related
to any transition), we would have to go via t-p-u – that would have been
a correct use of t-p-u, right?


Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: