Re: Proposal for an advanced Debian-QA system
Il sab, 2004-02-21 alle 00:00, Ben Burton ha scritto:
> > I'm not sure you can say it's always a bug for Debian's package to be
> > out-of-sync with the latest upstream release.
> >
> > For instance, there is a 2.x release of CPAN's HTML::FromText, which is
> > a complete rewrite by a new upstream maintainer. However, the new
> > maintainer freely admits that there's no reason to replace the stable
> > 1.x version (currently in Debian) with his less-stable 2.x version
> > unless we need one of his new features (which we don't, AFAIK).
>
If the 2.x relase is relased stable from the upstream author but you
find it less-stable than 1.x you can post and maintain 2.x in
experimental and for Debian package bugs or 1.x version bugs upgrade new
package version it in the actual repos (stable/unstable).
> Moreover, upstream will often release several alpha/beta versions before
> a proper release, and it doesn't follow at all that debian should have
> every alpha/beta release on its servers.
>
> Ben.
>
When the nightly (or weekly) Automated Debian QA System run if uscan
doesn't run fine the Automate Debian QA System open automatically a
minor bug on every package on that it has found a uscan-problem
requiring a fix in the watch field in the QA DBMS from the package's
Mantainer thorught the Web Interface to the QA DBMS.
The QA DBMS could store an extra field about stable/development stage of
the package or follow only stable upstream requiring at the package
Mantainer to mantaining a correct and upgraded regular
expression/wildcards in the watch file in the package and the watch
Field in the QA DBMS.
Blue.
Reply to: