On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 10:04:23AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org> schrieb: > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:33:16PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:25:55PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > >> > vendors, et al. But nevermind that. Can you make a case for sticking > >> > with XFree86? If you can, please do so. > >> > >> Yes, until sarge is released. Of course that's Branden and the XSF's > >> decision, in consultation with the release managers. > > > > Sarge was never relevant to this discussion, so I don't know why you > > ever brought it out, except to drag this discussion even further away > > from usefulness than it already was. > > As far as I know, it is still the standard procedure for updates > targetted at sarge to upload to unstable, and wait for the normal > testing transition. Everything else causes additional work for the > release managers and other people. On the other hand, having a new > upstream version in experimental causes additional work for the > maintainers, while xfree86 does seem to have quite some bugs that could > be fixed for sarge - maybe the XSF just decided to better do this work > instead of having x.org packages in experimental? > > And finally, if the time a packages spends in NEW is connected with its > complexity, I'd expect the x.org packages to sit in there for quite a > while. Since everybody was always told "the freeze will be very soon", > I fully understand that a maintainer team decides not to publish > packages that do such a major switch at the moment. Yes, but my point is that there are no packages available for after sarge's release, and the plan seems to be very flimsy. I was talking about long-term plans in this case.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature