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

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



Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
> On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 06:35:40PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> To build the complete GNOME 2.6.{0,1}, you need root access to a
>> chroot,
> What you don't ask, you don't get.

I asked for a mips box and built all packages on it - once.

>> as you have to install most packages after you've built them 'cause
>> they're in the build-deps of other packages.
> Other possibility is to just ask porters to build and upload packages.

I asked some people, and they all said they don't have the time to do
it. One offered me root access to one of his machines (which i used for
the mips builds)

>>> 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. 
>> I'd like to hear some more reasons for this sort of roadmap. ATM, we
>> can't release sarge anyway (as you've announced yourself). GNOME 2.4 is
>> stable and isn't developed upstream anymore, so we even don't need to
>> update the packages in testing.
> I don't buy that, there's always the possibility for something to need
> an update.

There's always a possibility, but *please* think about the age of these
packages. Most of them are in use for 6 months and more; and after that
time, i'd not hinder other work because someone *could* find a RC bug.

Assembling GNOME 2.6 in experimental is more work than doing it in
unstable.
I firmly believe that the advantages of doing this in unstable are
important enough to justify the possibility of more work with an update
of GNOME 2.4 package.

> If you upload GNOME 2.6, you throw away any possibility you otherwise
> could have had to easily update it  (that is, without annoying quite
> some people and without having a hell of a time getting your updated
> GNOME packages built). 

So we should annoy quite some people to get them build in experimental?
That argument doesn't work if we need packages for all (or nearly all)
archs in experimental. [Especially as we need ~45 builds for
experimental, an update for one package would be a looot easier to do]

It's not as if a GNOME 2.6 upload to unstable would be something weird,
it's what unstable is for. We're not sure if it's perfect, but we need
the bigger user-base and autobuilding to be sure if it's something to
release with sarge. OTOH, we know that GNOME 2.4 is OK.

Please also think about the Debian release cycle. Every day we don't use
to let users test GNOME 2.6 worsens the chances for a new GNOME in
sarge - sarge will be the stable Debian release for at least a year and
i really don't believe we'll be able to do a faster release next
time.

Marc
-- 
$_=')(hBCdzVnS})3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$(rellac(=_$({pam(esrever })e$.)4/3*
)e$(htgnel+23(rhc,"u"(kcapnu ,""nioj ;|_- |/+9-0z-aZ-A|rt~=e$;_$=e${pam tnirp{y
V2ajFGabus} yV2ajFGa&{gwmclBHIbus}gwmclBHI&{yVGa09mbbus}yVGa09mb&{hBCdzVnSbus';
s/\n//g;s/bus/\nbus/g;eval scalar reverse   # <mailto:marc@marcbrockschmidt.de>

Attachment: pgpA6b32ghRa6.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: