Re: Update on "upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable" status
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 05:39:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (Hrm, mutt's [L]ist-reply is dropping -gtk-gnome, suck)
> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 12:01:12AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > Le lun, 17/05/2004 ? 18:22 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit :
> > > alpha, hppa and s390 should be there too. Skipping out m68k might be
> > > okay, but you should certainly ask and try to get the core libraries
> > > built there too.
> > Ok, let me summarize, you want a build on all architectures and full
> > tests with no bugs. Basically you are asking for the unstable -> testing
> > conditions to upload something in unstable ... why ?
> No: I want you to do all you can to ensure there aren't going to be
> problems before you upload to unstable. The differences are, eg, between
> making sure Gnome 2.6 can be built everywhere, and actually having a
> particular version of Gnome 2.6 built everywhere; between fixing RC bugs
> you know about in advance, and spending a couple of weeks letting users
> find new ones and fixing those too.
Notice that having gnome 2.6 in experimental is somehow limiting the
user testing, since using experimental packages in the current state is
a real pain.
That said, making sure everything in experimental is in sync for all
arches uploaded there would make things easier. But then, maybe the pool
mechanism should not drop an older _all package if there is a package of
some arch that depends on it, but sure this would need more than one
version of the _all package in the archive.