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

Re: Update on "upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable" status

On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> * Architectures:
> A full Gnome2.6 is built and available in experimental for these archs:
> - i386
> - ppc
> - mips
> - arm
> - ia64

You're still missing alpha, hppa, sparc, mipsel, s390 and m68k...

> 2/ 
> - Upload new atk/pango/glib/gtk/theme-engines in unstable
> [1 day]

Don't think in terms of just one architecture; your job as maintainer
doesn't end when you get the stuff into the autobuilder system, it ends
when everything's in unstable and working correctly for all architectures.

> So what the release team thinks about this ? If you are fine with that
> we can start the migration today.

You don't have a majority of architectures build in experimental yet,
let alone all of them, or even almost all of them. You still need to
work on that.

You should be aiming to get everything uploaded to experimental ready to
reupload to unstable with no code changes (ie, just bump the version in
the changelog, change experimental to unstable, build and upload). If
you've got apps that need to transition at the same time -- Gnome apps
using DEPRECATED features, or KDE libs or whatever -- get those uploaded
into experimental too. Any packages you already know you're going to
break should be fixed before uploading anything to unstable. (Cooperate
with the maintainers, but don't be afraid to NMU to experimental --
just make sure you follow the usual procedure of keeping in contact
with the maintainer, respecting their wishes on how the package should
be constructed, and keeping patches in the BTS)


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

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: