Re: testing process broken

[Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>]

cjw44@flatline.org.uk (Colin Watson) writes:
> Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com> wrote:
> >  The process by which software gets into testing needs to be much
> >  more rigorous than it is. Consider:
> >
> >    xlibs won't upgrade because of bugs in ssh-askpass, sndconfig
> >    and/or playmidi that are "fixed in unstable." Why then, did xlibs
> >    get moved to testing and not the others?
> 
> I don't quite understand this

  See bugs 90118 and 90345 for more details.

> [The python-newt/libnewt0 dependency] sort of bug is *intended* to
> be fixed by testing, and usually is. I'm not sure why it slipped
> through the net, but it's a genuine bug as opposed to a design flaw
> (it seems you're presenting it as the latter).

  Only out of ignorance. Thanks for the clarification, that's a
  relief. Question: should we report such bugs under the package with
  the dependency, the package that it was dependent upon, or something
  else like `project' or `general?'

> The [testing] design is solid, though, so give it a little time to
> get the rough edges rubbed off before labelling it as "broken".

  I expect nothing less than solid from you folks. I'll keep the bug
  reports coming. Thanks for all the hard work.

  p.s. I was happy to see the unstable debconf and ssh-askpass
  packages install smoothly into my testing system. I was expecting a
  cascade of unmet dependencies, but there was nary a one.

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>  http://www.newt.com/wohler/  GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and mh-e. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.