* Adeodato Simó [Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:25:10 +0100]:
* Raphael Geissert [Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:32:51 -0600]:
Removing GNOME from testing because something depends on libfrufru1 isn't
a win for testing's usability.
It would only last until it is able to migrate without breaking anything. I
* Richard Atterer [Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:34:17 +0100]:
At the very least, there should be an auto-generated web page listing
packages in testing that are currently unreleasable!
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00836.html
--
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
-- Rory
* Raphael Geissert [Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:32:51 -0600]:
Removing GNOME from testing because something depends on libfrufru1 isn't
a win for testing's usability.
It would only last until it is able to migrate without breaking anything. I
think this is just a matter of deciding which way is
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 04:44:08PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Now, this has its own set of problems and caveats as well, since
if you don’t pay attention and take care of later cleanup, you end
up with packages in testing that do not belong to any
* Steve Langasek [Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:55:50 -0700]:
Hello, Steve.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 04:44:08PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Now, this has its own set of problems and caveats as well, since if you
don’t pay attention and take care of later cleanup, you end up with
packages in testing
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:48:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
[I'm personally slightly concerned about relaxing britney allowing
testing to get into unreleasable states; a flag to re-enable the old
behavoir late in release would probably be good.]
Adeodato's proposal makes a lot of sense,
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:48:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
[I'm personally slightly concerned about relaxing britney allowing
testing to get into unreleasable states; a flag to re-enable the old
behavoir late in release would probably be good.]
In practice, the
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:17:28PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:48:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
[I'm personally slightly concerned about relaxing britney allowing
testing to get into unreleasable states; a flag to re-enable the old
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Adeodato Simó wrote:
As said above, failures to build against the new library are RC from
day 0, and the intention is not to do transitions while those are
open, other constraints permitting.
Cool.
As for packages that are rebuilt in unstable but not migrated, I
don’t
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:17:28PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to remove the packages from testing? this way if
the library and other packages are ready to go they could easily migrate
without any special hack, if my understanding of the
Hello,
this mail is to talk a bit about the current situation regarding
transitions in unstable. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that the
Release Team has had to insist on semi-serializing them, because that’s
not the kind of development you want to have in unstable right after a
release.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 04:44:08PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Now, this has its own set of problems and caveats as well, since if you
don’t pay attention and take care of later cleanup, you end up with
packages in testing that do not belong to any source in testing, which
is bad.
Will there
12 matches
Mail list logo
