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

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

On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 11:48:01AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:49:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 05:39:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > We have not changed gnome2.4 packages for
> > > > weeks/months, if you fear for sarge we just need to put a RC bug on
> > > > atk/glib/gtk/pango from Gnome2.6 in unstable. 
> > > 
> > > There's no "just" about that. Doing that really does screw things up
> > > pretty majorly: packages in unstable with RC bugs need to be fixed
> > > _quickly_. Not immediately, maybe, but not after months and months either.
> > 
> > So, the right thing is to fix the testing-proposed-update mechanism to
> > make that happen, is it not ? What is actually the problem in having the
> > testing script applied to testing-proposed-updates also, and have it
> > being autobuilt ?
> That's actually exactly the current state. However, it's more difficult
> to get user testing of t-p-u uploads before they get into testing, so
> it's not really something we want to rely on too much.

Ah, last we tried this in february or so, testing-proposed-update was
not being autobuilt, and the result was that it was not usable for
debian-installer, but then maybe it has changed since then ? If so, then
this is the ideal method for solving the current problem, and we could
quite well upload gnome 2.6 to experimental and use t-p-u for RC bug
fixes in testing should they show up, since this will not be a often
occuring thing at this stage of the gnome 2.4 presence in sarge.

Now, there still remains the problem of loads of other non-gnome
packages that needs to be rebuilt against gnome 2.6, but maybe there is
no way around this in the current state of things.


Sven Luther

Reply to: