On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:08:56AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Why not? All packages from linux-latest-2.6 seem to depend on packages
> having their version number in the package name (linux-doc-2.6.39),
> hence they could co-exist in testing with binaries introduced by the new
> linux-2.6 source package (e.g. linux-doc-3.0.0). Seems to be the same
> case to me.
In this case, while is matches all the other rules, we don't want two different
kernel versions in testing just because linux-latest-2.6 depends on the older
ones. In this case we want to clean up everything before it migrates. From a
technical point of view it's no problem to have both around, I hope.
> > > easy linux-latest-2.6/39 linux-2.6/3.0.0-1 linux-kbuild-2.6/3.0.0-2
> > This one is correct.
> > So I think britney's rule that blocks out-of-date binaries to appear in testing
> > should be implemented in sat-britney. It should be configurable to allow (libs
> > oldlibs) in, though. Would that be possible?
>
> Probably. Can you give an exact definition of that requirements: „A
> source package may not be in testing if...“
>
> Bonus points if the definition can be verified with regard to the
> current _state_ of testing and unstable, without talking about changes.
A package that gets into testing should have the same set of binary packages as
unstable, unless the additional binaries are in section libs or oldlibs[1]. A
naive thought would be "if this package would be in testing => binaries foo and
bar, that are no longer built in unstable, cannot be in testing too".
Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
[1] I wonder though how much we anticipate SONAME changes in oldlibs. It
doesn't make much sense.
--
.''`. Philipp Kern Debian Developer
: :' : http://philkern.de Stable Release Manager
`. `' xmpp:phil@0x539.de Wanna-Build Admin
`- finger pkern/key@db.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature