On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:42:50AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:22:47AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > There was discussion in Vancouver about requiring ports to have an > > "upstream" kernel maintainer, FSO "upstream"; perhaps we should be > > considering requiring there to be a glibc/gcc/binutils upstream for each > > port, so that we don't get the first sign of these bugs when the > > packages hit unstable.
> What sort of q&a would upstream be doing that would help us out here? Ideally, for each port there would be someone tracking glibc/gcc/binutils upstream who's in a position to recognize when a change may cause regressions for that port, and testing accordingly. Next best is to have people who are making heavy use of updated versions of these packages before they reach unstable; this should generally be fairly straightforward, e.g. both gcc-4.0 and glibc 2.3.5 were in experimental for a while before being uploaded to unstable, but the buildds are still doing a lot of the work of catching regressions once they hit unstable, and by that point the damage is done. > Can the port teams do this kind of work themselves prior to packages > hitting unstable? Absolutely. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
