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

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 04:42:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:12:10AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > KDE 3 needed a long time until it was hinted into testing.
> Ahh, so why did it even needed to be hinted at all?
> How much more would testing stay in a releasable state if the manual hinting
> wasn't used at all?

The way testing currently works, nearly no new so-version of a library 
can ever enter testing without manual hinting.

An example:


Package: libfoo0
Source: libfoo
Version: 1-1

Package: myprog
Version: 5-1
Depends: libfoo0


Package: libfoo1
Source: libfoo
Version: 2-1

Package: myprog
Version: 5-2
Depends: libfoo1

libfoo version 2-1 isn't allowed to enter testing since this would make 
myprog uninstallable in testing

myprog 5-2 isn't allowed to enter testing since this would make myprog
uninstallable in testing.

These two packages need to go into testing at the same time, and the way 
the testing scripts currently work this means they need manual hinting.

> Why does testing get out of a releasable state?
>  o RC bugs are found after entering testing

"RC bugs" includes security fixes (that might already be in the packages
in unstable)

>  what else?

* it doesn't build inside itself since build dependencies aren't checked 
  by the testing scripts [1]

* it isn't consistent in all respects; e.g. although the package 
  dependencies might have been fulfilled, it contained for some time a 
  strange mixture of GNOME 1 and GNOME 2


[1] this doesn't has to make testing completely unreleasable, but in 
    some situations this would e.g. mean that security updates are


       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Reply to: