Re: Testing migration doesn't check build-depends?
* Luk Claes (firstname.lastname@example.org) [080511 19:09]:
> Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek [Sat, 10 May 2008 23:03:25 -0700]:
> >> That wouldn't be a good idea unless we first get support for keeping
> >> old library packages around in testing to allow asynchronous transitions.
> >> Otherwise, testing transitions would become far more brittle than they
> >> currently are.
> > Oh, point. But I don't think there were plans to make the current
> > britney support build-depends, and britney2 *already* supports keeping
> > old library packages around.
> I don't understand why dependency checking plus build dependency
> checking would need support for keeping old library packages while
> dependency checking without build dependency checking doesn't need it?
Eh, it's so:
A transition are a couple of packages (up to a few hundered sometimes)
that are glued together and can only go to testing at the same point in
time. Issue with that is that all of them need to be ready at one
Now, there are proposals that reduce the glue possibilities (or: making
the glue clowds smaller), and there are some that increase the glue
possibilities. One can also use another word for that: Some make testing
migrations easier, some make them harder.
In Steves and my opinion, there are already enough (or even: too many)
large transitions which are already hard enough, so we want to avoid
changes making migrations harder unless there are (at least) the same
amount of easier things in place compared to now.
Making it easier:
- keeping old versions around
Making it harder:
- build deps