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

Re: Bug#97755: PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system

On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 11:55:21AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > 	You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
> > >  release critical [...]
> > Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
> I agree with Manoj on this.  task packages exist potato and woody.  That means
> we have to support an upgrade path from potato to woody(and beyond!).  There
> can not be an abrupt change.  

Upgrading from potato to woody and beyond works fine, nothing breaks,
you merely don't get your tasks to upgrade cleanly by simply using apt.

> We are too close to freeze, to have this implemented right, no matter HOW
> simple the code is.

Please go back and reread the thread about this immediately after potato's
release: the problem with tasks as they existed for potato was that they
make it very hard to cope with RC bugs in packages in a task. If any one
package has an RC bug and has to be removed, the entire task gets broken.

That needs to be resolved before this freeze, no matter how complicated
the code is.

Since people seem to be more amenable to statements from authority than
sensible reasons, take the above as a statement from the release manager.
Woody needs tasks, and they need to be fixed compared to potato's
implementation and the task packages in woody and sid at present.

I would highly appreciate it if people would mind actually helping resolve
this than continually harping on about why this can't possibly be done.

Additionally, we'll be fixing the optional/extra priority mismatches
for woody. It would be nice to also have an up to date list of lintian
errors for -qa to work through. It'd be very nice if someone could work
through policy and mind anything that's either wrong, or inconsistent
(especially as far as shoulds and musts are concerned).

As opposed to working out exactly what /bin/sh can be for example.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgp1FP1nvJa0G.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: