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

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

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

Ok, we can get mipsel and sparc too, is that enough ?

It's not reasonable to ask a full build of gnome2.6 on the 11 archs. 

Having packages ok on i386 is a full time job, there are uploads almost
every day ... doing the work of autobuilders on 10 archs it's simply too
much work, and we don't even have enough boxes to do this.

>> - 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
> when everything's in unstable and working correctly for all

Who thinks in terms of one arch ? We have 5 full builds. The 1 day is
the time to manage the uploads for these packages in unstable, that's

> 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.

mipsel and sparc would be enough ?

> You should be aiming to get everything uploaded to experimental ready
> reupload to unstable with no code changes (ie, just bump the version
> the changelog, change experimental to unstable, build and upload). 

Yes, gnome2.6 is in this state.

> you've got apps that need to transition at the same time -- Gnome apps
> using DEPRECATED features, or KDE libs or whatever -- get those
> into experimental too. Any packages you already know you're going to
> break should be fixed before uploading anything to unstable. 

Almost done, we are fixing most of problem directly in unstable, and it
will be done before any upload. 

BTW any chance to speed up new libcupsys2 acceptation in experimental ?
The name has changed and it's in NEW ... having it accepted now would be
great since we are waiting on it for the last changes.


Sebastien Bacher

PS: could you keep the reply on -gtk-gnome list. I've not subscribed to
-release, and that's the case for most of gnome maintainers I think.

Reply to: