Re: Haskell Plans for wheezy
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 06:19:16PM -0700, John Millikin wrote:
> Sorry for the ignorant question, but does this mean that I should be
> holding off on uploading new packages as well, or does it only apply to
> upgraded packages?
Brand-new packages are not a concern except for the potential
time they'll add to subsequent binNMU rounds. Some people get
unreasonably uptight about this.
The packages of concern are the ones embroiled in the dependency
graph of the packages already in testing.
> If new packages should not be uploaded until the transition is complete,
> is there anywhere to check the progress of the transition? The Debian
> wiki pointed me to http://release.debian.org/transitions/ and
> http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/haskell.html , but I was
> unable to figure out the status of the transformers/mtl transition from
> those pages.
On the latter, you should be concerned about source packages with a
red X, unless they say "(sid only)" AND there are no other packages
depending on them. For example, haskell-gd is irrelevant, but
haskell-conduit is significant.
In addition to the page you identified, you could look at these URLs:
http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ghc
http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html
http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_output.txt
If you're curious about why a package might be out-of-date and
thus tripping britney (the somewhat brain-damaged script which
manages testing), you can look at the buildd data, such as
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=haskell-warp
This shows you, for instance, that a binNMU was scheduled
for warp, but the amd64 buildd choked on it.
In theory, the amd64 buildd admin would do something about
this.
Reply to: