Re: Xfree 3.3.3.1
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 12:31:33PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 03:06:02PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > ???? no X packages at least, no x source that i could find ????
> >
> > bash-2.02$ lftp ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/potato/main/source/x11
> > cd ok, cwd=/debian/dists/potato/main/source/x11
> > lftp> ls xfree*
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 ftp ftp 62 Jan 8 1999
> > xfree86_3.3.2.3a-8.1.diff.gz ->
> > ../../../../slink/main/source/x11/xfree86_3.3.2.3a-8.1.diff.gz
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 ftp ftp 58 Jan 8 1999 xfree86_3.3.2.3a-8.1.dsc
> > -> ../../../../slink/main/source/x11/xfree86_3.3.2.3a-8.1.dsc
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 ftp ftp 62 Jan 8 1999
> > xfree86_3.3.2.3a.orig.tar.gz ->
> > ../../../../slink/main/source/x11/xfree86_3.3.2.3a.orig.tar.gz
> >
> > and i doubt he has powerpc packages, so my upload should cause him no problem,
> > also he didn't respond to me when i wrote to him ...
>
> Just because there are only symlinks to slink does not mean there are
> no potato packages - they're just the same version as in slink. x86
> users running potato will be broken by your upload.
huh ??? as long as nobody compiles them on i386, there should be no
problem ... and anyway, the packages in potato should be the same as
the ones in slink, since they come from the same source, well i guess
the difference is in the environment used for building this stuff ...
>
> > why you don't say it then, there have been people asking for a newer X since
> > ages, and it would have saved me lot of time doing this stuff. and the current
> > X packages, as well as the other packages that we could download from
> > somewhere are incompatible with the current state of base. This is a grave
> > problem, i think ...
>
> I posted them twice to this list.
sorry, i missed the announcement then, ...
but then, ... i checked debian-powerpc, ... there is no such announce,
perhaps you mean debian-devel-announce, sorry don't read that, it will
explode my mailbox more than it is already, ...
>
> > sure, ...
> >
> > you upload a doted debian version to potato, let's say -0.1, like my packages,
> > so no clash with branden's stuff, and then when he feels like he has time for
> > it, he just check your stuff, and uploads a full debian version (-1 in this
> > case) and your packages will get removed automatically.
> >
> > At least that should be the way to go, and is it not like that that
> > xfree-3.3.2.3a-8.1 was downloaded, with fixes for m68k ?
>
> Yes. And were you around for the screaming fight when Branden found
> out about that NMU? He may be a little slow in answering his email,
yes, he is flaming hard about the X reorg on debian-devel, ... :)
Seriously now, if Branden don't care/don't have time/don't know what
happens to people not of the i386 port, that's his problem, and there
should be nothing breaking if you do a NMU with a dotted version, it is
the way things should be done, why was Branden screaming ? because the
xfree-3.3.2.3a-8.1 upload was broken ? Unless someone compiled it under
i386 and made a binary only upload of it, this should be no problem. HE
just would have needed to take the diff, apply it in his home tree,
check it, and release a xfree-3.3.2.3a-9. No big issue, isn't it ?
If some one made a i386 binary NMU, that is another problem, but i
don't think this broke something, or did it ? why the screaming then
???
> but he is by no means missing. Uploading his packages without his
> permission is very rude.
>
i asked here what to do with the packages, almost two weeks before
making the upload, i put them on another site at first because i didn't
know where to put it, but nobody responded me until i uploaded them
already.
> > If branden would have had a xfree package in potato, then i guess my packages
> > would have gone to experimental instead ...
>
> Please , put them in experimental.
ok what now ? should they go into potato or experimental, i don't
mirror experimental, only potato, why should i download load's of
outdated stuff just because branden does not like it. Is there a good
technical reason for them going in experimental, altough all i read, by
it in the policy or in developper docs, says it should go in potato ?
I don't know, ...
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
Reply to: