Re: enlightenment_0.16.3-6.deb for ppc

[Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@mit.edu>]

Sergio Brandano wrote:

> >>  ... by the way, yes it is *unstable*, I know it. But this must not
> >>  necessarily imply that it *must* crash, right? One can also upload
> >>  the new packages and leave the freedom to the others to do some
> >>  beta-testing or keep the old one, right?
>
> > Right, but when people develop on i386 or whatever, and upload
> > source packages, which are built by autobuilders for the other
> > platforms, one should expect that things might not work.
> >
> > I think that's one reason autobuilders are prohibited from uploading
> > to frozen/ as well as stable/.
>
>  I perfectly agree, but you are not adding much to what I said.
>
>  Please have a look at the directory
>  /debian/dists/frozen/main/binary-powerpc/x11
>
>  where
>    enlightenment-data_0.16.3-7.deb
>    enlightenment-theme-bluesteel_0.16.3-7.deb
>    enlightenment-theme-brushedmetal_0.16.3-7.deb
>    enlightenment-theme-shinymetal_0.16.3-7.deb
>
>  but
>    enlightenment_0.16.3-6.deb

And you have not heard what I said: this happens on every non-i386 platform all
the time.  The _all.debs get updated with the newest binary upload from the
author/maintainer who built it for i386 (or whatever).  The _ppc.debs don't get
updated until the autobuilder uploads it (for unstable), or a maintainer uploads
the ppc binary for frozen or stable.  Hence the problem.

This is why you need to hold the _all.debs when a _ppc.deb is built, so you can
have the same version of _all and _ppc.debs, and it won't upgrade the _all.debs
until the next time you want it to.

>  Shall we conclude that ``frozen'' is, de facto, a synonym for
>  ``unstable''? Or shall frozen better contain the 0.16.3-6 packages?

It should not be considered stable until it is called so.  Wait another month or
two.

-Adam P.