Re: why are new upstream versions of glib being uploaded?
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 10:06:06PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 21:02 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 05:21:31PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Why are new upstream releases being added to upstable of the glib2.0
> > > package? We are in a freeze, I thought. And one seems perhaps to be
> > > responsible for a regression in gnucash (see #404585).
> > It's always nice when packages that need additional fixes for release can
> > get them there by way of unstable, but now that we're in a full freeze
> > that's not really required and there are no real grounds for the release
> > team trying to impose such a restriction on maintainers.
> I'm confused. Just a week ago I asked about uploading a new upstream
> release of lilypond into unstable, and I was told not to.
You asked for the release team's input into whether to upload the new
upstream version, and Luk replied with an explanation that was consistent
with the release team's position on the matter: new upstream versions and
uploads including changes that don't qualify for freeze exceptions are
considered risky and therefore discouraged. But you don't actually need the
release team's permission to upload to unstable, and it's not anything we're
going to get into an argument over with maintainers that make such uploads
as long as there aren't ABI-breaking changes that will interfere with
getting necessary updates into etch for other packages.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: