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

Re: zack's packages status update

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:52:50PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:27:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Until I've seen these two rebuildal I wont start the mini freeze because
> > > I am not sure if I had to upload new versions or not.
> > Mmm, but you are aware that the delay only count from the package upload
> > time.
> Yes, but if in the next 5 days I discover that some package is still

5 days ? you are not uploading with priority low, which is 10 days ?

> bug, I want to be able to upload the package.

If there is a bug, then there can be an upload, but maybe it is not
really needed, and can wait for after the testing migration. This only
postpones the problems.

True, if there are RC bugs in dependant packages, this may be
problematic, but maybe the sid version of those is not really needed. As
an example, my lablgl package used to depend on xlimesa-gl-dev, which
was available since 4.2.1-5 only, and now i fixed this so that it can
work and install fine with the woody/sarge version also.

> > Well, but the packages currently in sarge are obsolete 3.04 ones, which
> > are even older than the ones currently in woody (i have ocaml 3.06-14 in
> > woody, but only 3.06-12 in sarge). Do you really believe people still
> > use that, and not your woody backports or (now) the unstable versions
> > instead ?
> My woody repository is unofficial. Removing packages from testing is an
> abuse, IMO.

Sure, but then, we could as well forget about the mini-freeze.

> > version of postgresql). Would it be that problematic to remove those
> > libraries that are not able to enter testing, this will not remove them
> > from users machines, and they will enter testing again when they are
> > ready.
> It wont remove packages from users machines, but if they deinstall them,
> they wont be able to install them anymore.

Well, wrong, they can simply get the woody ones, no problem there.

> Removing packages from testing just to let others enter it's an extreme
> solution. I so no need to take it now, we have no hurry yet.

Another solution would be to make uploads of the problematic packages to
testing-upgrade, so these will enter testing at the same time as
ocaml 3.06, and there would be no problem. This would be only needed for
problematic packages, once the 10 day period is finished and the package
has been built on all arches, but i don't know if the ftp-masters would
like it.

Another solution would be to help fix the RC bugs in dependant packages,
but this may not be easy for any of us, and anyway, i don't really think
that packages maintained by other folk will follow our mini-freeze.


Sven Luther

Reply to: