On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 01:53:39PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > There is nothing that ensures that packages are built at the same time. > > The testing scripts ensure that all packages migrate to testing at the > same time. This is by design.
Testing migration irrelevant time. The installation set at build time is. And nothing ensures that different architectures use equally versioned installation sets. > What you are basically asking me is that I care about unstable as if it > were stable (your mention of CVE issues suggests so, but neither > unstable or testing shortly after a stable release are supposed to > have real security support). I agree that unstable sometimes is broken, but we can only reasonably provide QA if it is not too broken. What "too broken" is is difficult to define and your definition obviously is different from mine. > Unstable is where we try new things even if they break other things. > When other things break we fix the other things and move forward. I do hope that fixes appear soon and this discussion becomes irrelevant. However that does not seem to be the case to me. > Currently, I see that glibc FTBFS in testing as well: I think unstable is where the majority of QA happens. Yeah, breakage is not a boolean, but I've been bitten too often and report stuff early now. Just make it work again. ;) Helmut
