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

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Joey wrote:
>Packages in unstable have dependencies in unstable which may not be
>met in testing, hence they cannot simply be included in testing.
>Unfortunately we need to take care of this.

I've come up at least once with a suggestion on how we could avoid this
problem and increase the throughput of unstable->testing.  However I got 
virtually no feedback on this.

The original description is at

Today, I'd rather describe it as adding a "pre-testing" stage, where
packages migration from unstable would not take generated binary deps
into account, and candidates for migration out of unstable would be
rebuilt against pre-testing for migration.

That would allow many packages to migrate much more quickly out of
unstable, while still filtering out a good number of early-detected RC
bugs.  Then the current method for migration into testing can be
applied to pre-testing instead of unstable, and since there should be
less RC bugs there, as well as less blocker packages (like a recent
gcc, glibc, kde, gnome, python, <insert-favorite-here>), packages
could eventually migrate more quickly into testing.

There _are_ many things to think about, but it may be worth to
investigate it, and see how we could handle the potential problems we
can think of.

>Packages with similar depencency complexity pose the same problems, I'm
>sure.  A lot of dependencies need to be fulfilled before they can be
>included.  If somewhere in the chain there is a problem, the package
>cannot go in.

That's typically the type of problem I'm trying to address with this

[please CC me on followup]

Yann Dirson    <ydirson@altern.org> |    Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <dirson@debian.org> |   Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro:    <yann.dirson@fr.alcove.com> |  Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
     http://ydirson.free.fr/        | Check <http://www.debian.org/>

Reply to: