Re: move to britney2?
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:35:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Steve Langasek (email@example.com) [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.
Ok, great :)
> 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. ;)
We certainly did. It's not a new idea, and I certainly don't suggest that
switching to b2 will suddenly cause patches to appear. But OTOH, the
current muddled state of britney maintenance does make it harder for anyone
to submit patches should they wish to do so.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/