On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:01:01PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > After a week of hard work we have made a lot of progress, so I hope this > time it'll be ok for release time : Curses. So much for the easy answers. > * Architectures : > We have full builds on these 10 architectures : > - alpha > - arm > - hppa > - i386 > - ia64 > - mips > - mipsel > - powerpc > - sparc (on http://people.debian.org/~phython/) Well done. Please make sure they're uploaded to experimental though. > The m68k build is in progress (gtk+2.0 and a part of gnome2.6 have been > built). Cool. You probably should wait 'til you can say "the base of gnome2.6 has been built", but that sounds fine. > The only architecture missing is s390. I've mailed > email@example.com to ask for help but no reply at all (nobody > to make builds, no access offer to a s390 box). Yeah. I was expecting that. :( > * Unstable package with gtk+2.4 > Not sure of the best option here. I think we should upload gtk+2.4, bump > the severity of these bugs to serious and wait a week or so before > NMUing them if necessary. Make sure all the maintainers are aware of what's going on (now), then NMU them as soon as possible (after gtk+2.4 gets into unstable, some autobuilding starts, and you're sure there isn't some new set of chaos that we didn't catch in advance). > * gnutls 7->10 transition > The transition has been made in experimental for cups, gnome and related > packages. Hrm; is this going to screw up d-i? > * tests > Some upgrade tests from "gnome 2.4.1 sarge" to "gnome 2.6 experimental" > have been successfully made. Upgrades from unstable to experimental have > been tested too with success. Some woody -> experimental tests would've been a good idea; but I don't think they're worth stressing over right now. > Is there anything else expected from the release team for Gnome2.6 > before the upload to unstable or are we ok now ? I can't think of anything. Jeff? Colin? Steve? Joey? Any obvious reasons left why the Gnome 2.6 debs are definitely not ready for consumption yet? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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.''
Description: Digital signature