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

Re: potato revision one

On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 03:08:12PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> > auric:~ajt/chkproposedupdates.sh and auric:~ajt/chkproposedupdates2.sh
> > might (or might not) be informative to people trying to grok what updates
> > are about and what arches haven't been doing recompiles. quinn-diff is
> > operating on stable+proposed-updates so autobuilders have no reason not
> > to be keeping up to date.
> I'm aware of quin-diff. Not every architecture uses it though: the alpha
> porters for example compile things manually and need some prodding at
> times.

Yes, sparc people need prodding too, and they use quinn-diff. Of course,
once they've been prodded they still don't tend to do anything. But
whatever. Prodding happened a good month ago, and we got some arm updates
out of it.

> I'll explain why I am so upset: you have been saying for weeks and weeks
> that a 2.2r1 was coming and yet nothing happened. 

Well, actually, something did happen. And considering you didn't complain
at all during the weeks and weeks where nothing happen, I think you're
mistaking your complaint.

But in any event, yes, you're exactly right. You knew 2.2r1 was coming,
but you waited until it had already happened before bothering to do
anything. gnupg fixes were done by James for weeks before getting a
security announcement, for example. Apparently there's some ncurses issue,
which still hasn't had anything done about it?

> We had a bunch of
> oustanding security problems and Dan and I were trying very hard to work
> on them this friday on irc while you were present so you knew we were
> working on it.

Yes, well this is what happens when you leave things 'til after I've
already asked James to update stable. Whining about it now is next to
pointless. If you want them in the next revision *upload* them already.

> What I want to see is discussion about proposed changes to stable:
> an easily human readable list of what package you want to accept,
> which you want to refuse, for what architecture pacakges are already
> available, and a short statement as to why.

Yes, well maybe you should've thought of mentioning this before the
revision. Heck, if you really wanted to be helpful, maybe you'd have
thought to mention it before I started doing it too.


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

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark

Attachment: pgp8RErUhe3Mg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: