Re: Proposal: incremental release process (the package pool)
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 03:05:49PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> I was under the impression that the package pools idea was orthogonal
> to this (I could be missing the point, not having paying very close
> attention to this re-hashing of the issue).
>
> The package pools bit that I was in favour of consisted of:
>
> an area under which every package in every current (stable,
> unstable, testing etc.) distribution would be found.
>
> a directory naming convention that would place all the files for a
> package under a directory of its own. This would probably have to
> be based on the name of the source files, so that multi-binary
> packages would be grouped together.
Seconded.
This is the correct way of starting thinking of it (IMHO).
Now, Anthony, can you please rehash your "stable, testing, unstable"
proposal around this orthogonality?
Something else that it was said was not to remove immediately packages
that goes unreferenced outside the pool; just symlink them from a
"removal" area where a cron scrubber do the real deletion after some
{weeks,days}. This "removal" area should not be mirrored: it's just for
the timestamp.
Another issue I already raised few years ago, was to collect
"positive reports" to trigger the promotion from unstable to tested,
something like "no {important,severe,grave} bugs open PLUS at least N
positive reports within M days".
QA has surely (I hope) something similar already in use.
But don't think of it as a "sponsor" stuff.
It's just saying "I've tested this packaged: I found no bugs in it."
fab
--
| fab@pukki.ntc.nokia.com fpolacco@prosa.it fpolacco@debian.org
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
| fabrizio.polacco@nokia.com gsm: +358 (0)40 707 2468
Reply to: