[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libpqxx v4.0 sid upload

On 2012-06-19 20:35:48, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:04 +0100, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> > On 2012-06-19 12:26:39, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:20:30 +0100, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> > > > I'd like to upload (not personally but by my sponsor [thx Matthijs btw]) new
> > > > version of pqxx (postgresql bindings for C++) to unstable. I'm putting urgency
> > > > to medium to make it before freeze.
> > > 
> > > Are you kidding?  What do you think the point of the urgency field is?
> > 
> > As an answer I'll ask you if those questions are rhetorical? If they are not
> > I'll try to answer them.
> > To answer your 1st question answer is no. Answer to your 2nd question is 'I
> > think so' as DP is not very complicated in this case.
> fwiw, the second question was "what do you think the point is", not "do
> you know what the point is".

Yes you're fully correct my reply wasn't on the subject, sorry for that. But I
think I know for what the filed is as it quite well documented.

>  In any case, policy says:
>      This is a description of how important it is to upgrade to this
>      version from previous ones.
> By extension, when applied to testing migration, there's an implicit "in
> testing".  "I want to beat the freeze" is *not* "it is moderately
> important that users upgrade to this version of the package".  "The
> version in testing has RC bugs that significantly affect its usability"
> might be.
> (<URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/06/msg00621.html> is
> also relevant here.)

To be understand correctly I'm not contesting anything you wrote above I just
want to point this one:

  The urgency affects how quickly a package will be considered for inclusion
  into the testing distribution and gives an indication of the importance of
  any fixes included in the upload. 

  (from http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/footnotes.html#f42)
> It looks like version 4 of libpqxx is a new source package (libpqxx
> versus libpqxx3) and doesn't share any binary package names with version
> 3?  In that case were you to upload to unstable then the urgency would
> be irrelevant in any case, as britney will automatically set any new
> source package (i.e. one with no version in testing) to low urgency.

Ok, so to be clear and to avoid messing around should or shouldn't this be
uploaded now or have to wait until Wheeze release?
If it can be uploaded now will the transitions be blocked automatically?

> > > > Maintainers of the packages dependant on libpqxx have been asked to try it as
> > > > it has been upload to experimental some time ago.
> > > > Therefore I'm hoping everything is ok and that release team has no objections
> > > > to above.
> > > > 
> > > No, this is very much not OK.  The time for such requests ended at least
> > > a month ago.
> > 
> > In this case what are you suggesting me/us to do, as freeze is not there yet?
> The relevant point isn't whether the freeze has arrived yet; starting
> new transitions right up until the moment of freeze would be beneficial
> to no-one.  Please see
> <URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/05/msg00004.html>, particularly the last section.

I'm not going to argue as I fully accept your and Philipps
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/06/msg00532.html) explanation and
thank you for your (both of you) answer.
If just somebody could answer my questions above I'll be fully satisfied.
Thank you all and have a good day.

|_|0|_|                                          |
|_|_|0|         "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam"          |
|0|0|0|         -------- kuLa ---------          |

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x58C338B3
3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD  58C3 38B3

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: