Re: move to britney2?
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 23:35 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Steve Langasek (firstname.lastname@example.org) [110430 23:24]:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:28:43PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > - be less strict and keep old binaries (and thus 2 versions of the same
> > > > source package) in testing. This applies in particular for libraries
> > > > going through SONAME changes and which can happily coexist during a
> > > > transition.
> > > That was already discussed and approved for testing I think in
> > > Helsinki. However, it needs someone implementing code, and isn't as
> > > easy as it looks like. Feel free to submit patches though.
> > I guess that the continued need to run both britney1 and britney2 in
> > parallel is somewhat of a barrier for submitting patches. Any ETA for
> > switching to britney2?
> Last I remember was "after the large transitions are done", which
> would be ... now. And yes, that should happen.
Yes, it should. I've been trying to make sure that the bugs we know
about in b2 are documented in the BTS and fix them; the first part
should at least be done now. I should also dig out my RFC mail on the
switch which I think is sitting in my drafts somewhere.
> But re the "keeping old libs", that was already an issue before b2
> existed. Also, I seem to remember we discussed that already in
> Vancouver, but you should know that better. ;)
>From what I've seen of the code, I was under the impression that this
was what b2's "smooth updates" feature was designed for. It's not
currently enabled as doing so would cause potentially significant
differences in the output between b1 and b2.