On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > I'm not sure why you think that adding a new binary package is something you > should do a few days before the freeze instead of more near the beginning of > a release cycle. Of course you can try to add that binary package some days > before the announced freeze, but you are then the one taking the risk that > the package won't make it anymore. There are packages entering NEW daily and > some line has to be drawn to make lenny really frozen. > > I didn't think that adding a new binary package with an impending freeze was that great of an idea. Of course, as I have no control over the upstream developers, I didn't get to pick in which upstream release they would decide to add proper SONAME support and documentation. To me, the proper SONAME support is the biggest reason to allow the new version. But since they added the documentation, I thought it might be better for potential users to have that available in a pacakge. Believe me, had there been a way to do this, I would done it earlier in the cycle. Either way, it is clear that with an impending freeze, this was a very bad idea. The "proper" way it seems, would have been to roll the documentation into the -dev or the -examples package and then NEW processing would not have been required. Then I could have split out the documentation post-Lenny. As it is, Lenny users are now going to miss out on two substantial improvements to the package, unless someone on the release team agrees to an exception. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature