Re: when to upload x.org packages to unstable
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 01:02:50PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This one's listed for -2 in the TODO:
> * Finalize all library build/versioning/arrangement decisions as much as
> possible before uploading to unstable, so we don't wreak havoc on the
> entire
> world via dpkg-shlibdeps.
>
> But it seems likely that that should be done before the *first* upload
> to unstable, for exactly the specified reason!
This isn't my item, and to be honest I don't really know what it means.
They look finalized to me, but I've got admittedly little experience with
such things. Branden?
> Also, what are the plans for integrating with the toolchain change? There
> are a number of C++ programs in the XWindows distribution. Is the plan to
> go through that messy transition *after* going through the X.org
> transition? Could there be advanatages to waiting to upload X.org until it
> can be built against the new toolchain? Or not?
Yes, the plan is to go through it afterwards. I'd considered doing it
beforehand, but I don't think it's worthwhile. It could be a great deal of
work, and people need a show of actual progress beyond commits to the SVN
repo. They need actual packages in Debian that they can run for themselves.
We've made good progress on this so far, but we're not there yet.
Psychologically, after the sarge release, we need to show that etch will
not be the same thing, or if it is then it won't be the fault of the XSF.
I'm willing to break unstable from time to time in order to do this, since
that's what it's for. The C++ transition will be a top priority for the
second major upload to unstable, and we won't be hurting anything by not
making the transition immediately for this first upload.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: