Re: systemd-shim to be removed?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 10/02/2014 at 09:55 AM, Rob Owens wrote:
> From: "Jonathan Dowland" <jmtd@debian.org>
>
>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 07:08:37PM -0700, Rusi Mody wrote:
>>
>>> To me, a non-expert user, what sense does this make?
>>
>> jessie is still in development, it has not been released. If you
>> are unduly concerned by running an in-development suite, stick
>> to stable.
>
> It's true that this shouldn't be an issue in stable (once this
> stuff hits stable), but in the meantime how are we supposed to test
> (using unstable or testing) if the releases of systemd and
> systemd-shim are not coordinated? Would it be unreasonable to ask
> the maintainers to coordinate their releases?
If I'm understanding matters correctly, the problem that caused the
current bad situation isn't something that would be addressed by
coordinating releases. It would have to require coordinating migration
from unstable to testing, which AFAIK the maintainers have no control
over; I believe that's controlled entirely by the FTP masters.
If there's any decent way to express a requirement that one migration
depend on another, aside from package dependencies of a sort which are
ruled out in this case by the need to allow other things, I'm not aware
of it offhand. I'm fairly sure someone will point out something that
will seem obvious in hindsight...
- --
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJULWwtAAoJEASpNY00KDJrFe4P/iW4GszihLvIXgUY2yTatPIl
hrJklb9br1jzYFQHV1EGTjMmclg/Vn6sSm+0FL2WmdNysNXSk6BKsrNGsaGFnPGN
IUzvZU46am/scsa9aX0FZrWz3CuOzevJDF4Bd7deB+W1fj6i35n1E9HkRGYaFsPt
9BL6hGGSSdnVzeI9KiR97uczl+VYO4cEO31RGIs17AKk/N1CATc40X9VjuRVpuFx
/PPGuudIj4yZJU1Dc7zSrkNI3dpzfiuAIQqC7sU6iDFYx0YR5iFg03um+MADhoTI
J0SF1ArdW4x8b0WVU47pTqxloNYwFfox4uP5gOX3kRL2H3dpVj+QDpKKVqeB8bZd
nltZ2bD7bxNhruWvBbewHAIXP7M9Iewcw8AZK4FM7Vb7g0Fldlks3ttHmsHfNcyC
hHv3ngjgez4Ou+6gnD5rQ99GgbIvwk0lHi2NDCupz6czNhBIL/9Tyf2027mlM6ix
wrOVXHX+1/zcg7+vjgFTamcCufxm5x20A5kgt5gk7DfNpFQCH0FxDXI0Kdw28ZbV
df4pJGYU4CEfHCbq6/TeoWwWRTenyF1ouNHDCecKRywK285Ztcl7WT6pYR+wJIwx
iRCYUKfkeEfi8+c87l91vgcJJRe5Fod47gJdTpknfd02Ab+hL8hyPRS6Uf0uOylG
xiq4fjLJaARmSdWisIp1
=kUr7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: