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

Re: Bug#219545: Proposed packages to remove from testing

(Moving from debian-release -- followups probably belong in debian-project)
Steve Langasek (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00010.html):
> "Not buildable" -> "not releasable."  This is not a new concept.

Steve Langasek (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00008.html):
>Is it currently releasable?  If not, then there's no reason to keep it
>in testing, is there?

This sums up why I proposed its removal from testing (*not* from unstable).
There really is no argument against this given that "testing" is supposed
to be in a "releasable state" at all times!  (Admittedly, that doesn't often
happen, but it's certainly better to try than not to try!)

Steve Langasek (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00010.html):
>Removing packages from testing is the domain of the release manager;
>removing packages from unstable (and NEW queue processing) is the domain
>of the ftp-master team at large.  Unless you mean for the release
>manager to prioritize the general queue management work above the
>specific release management work, I don't see how the two are much

Sven Luther (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00011.html),
regarding the release manager:
>Which is also an ftp-master,

OK, this is a valid point.  I agree that general queue management work
*should* be prioritized over specific release management work.
This might best be accomplished by having more people who aren't release
manager as ftpmasters.  :-)

Sven Luther (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00011.html):
>Yep, or at least provide some feedback about the issue. Right now, they
>are like a black hole where nothing ever comes out, and the only way to
>get attention is to make a week long rant on the public mailing lists,
>which worked for aj some month back, but is lost on elmo, which has me
>black-listed anyway.

He's far from the only person to complain about non-responsiveness of the
ftpmasters.  Probably this should move to debian-policy, since it's gotten
off-topic for debian-release.

Sven Luther (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00011.html):
>parted is used for debian-installer,
>without which we cannot release, while advi is probably used by less
>than 1% of our users, and nobody will really miss it if it is removed in
>the last minute. 

Quite right.  So nobody will miss it if it is removed now, either.  From
*testing*, mind you; a fixed version in unstable will propagate to testing
*as usual* even if the current version is removed from testing.  OK?

Anyway, the RM claimed that sarge would be released *already*, so claims
that the release is "far away" are very questionable.

I have not proposed removals from unstable without great thought and lots of
evidence.  Removals from testing are another matter.

Sven Luther (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00011.html):
>And seriously, i am a bit demotivated. I past hours and days compiling
>powerpc kernels, each build needing 6 hours of compile time, working
>around bugs and bad design in kernel-package, and loosing time i could
>otherwise have spent on other stuff, just to have the package die in the
>NEW queue limbo. What good is my participation into debian if my work is
>threated like shit ? Not to speak about the time last year when i
>suddenly, on the 30 of december, receive a mail from elmo telling me
>that the way we handle api changes in the ocaml package was not
>acceptable to the buildd, without further explanation, and i, instead of
>passing a nice sylvester, ask him for details, i get killfiled by him,
>and let to wonder in the dark ? And all this, just to see other packages
>do exactly the same thing a few months later ?

See previous complaints.  Debian clearly has some serious problems; I
personally credited some of them to James Troup once.  The surprising part
about that was that I was then told by several other people, "Well, you've
prevented yourself from ever becoming a Debian Developer now; he'll never
let you in."

I hope that that is not true, and personally I have no reason to believe
that it's true.  However, the fact that several Debian Developers -- ones
who have not discussed the topics on public mailing lists, apparently out
of fear of blacklisting! -- *believe* it to be true is very disturbing,
and provides in and of itself evidence of serious communication problems.

Nathanael Nerode  <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>

Reply to: