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 release team has to do this at various points in the > release cycle anyway because the transitions become so entangled that > breaking something in testing, or removing a bunch of packages that we > intend to release with, are the only options. This approach at least > ensures that testing will remain installable and (presumably) useful > during the rocky transitions, merely requiring a bit of cleanup of old > packages. >
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 situation is correct. This change would not affect users of the removed packages, because unless the new library conflicts the old one, no package would break on installed systems. This schema is more or less what Richard Atterer is proposing, but instead of solving the transition on the archive, it would be happening on the user's machines. What do you think? Whatever happens, thanks for your work! :) Cheers, Raphael Geissert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
