[Thanks for all the info, Ben! Just one thought cause I am too short of time to make the several replies/questions I'd like to make.) :) :( ]
--- Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As for woody, the koffice in woody is very old (June/July 2001). The reason > for this is the frequent updates and the fact that koffice is very large and > thus takes some time to be built for all architectures, by which time there's > often been another upload and so on and so on. At the moment all that's > keeping koffice out of woody is an arm rebuild and two more days' wait, and > unless some major bug is discovered I'm not going to do another upload until > 1.1.1 has progressed into woody. So cross your fingers and koffice for woody > might be up to date in the order of days. I am wondering if it might be better for the community as a whole (by satisfying, say 85% of peoples needs sooner, rather than wait a long time to satisfy 100% of peoples needs) if on special occasions sw was deliberately moved from Sid to Woody in advance of when it would normally get there by the current rules of migration. After all, the rules of migration are not laws of physics, nor the word of an almighty lawgiver. They are merely a policy of a human organization. Perhaps I'm really suggesting that the Debian community might be better served if it adopted a more sophisticated and beneficial policy about moving packages from Sid to Woody. It seems to me that if the Woody packages are more than a month older than the packages in Sid, a human should intervene and deliberately move a decent quality more recent version of that SW into Woody. The version moved in needn't be bug free. But, it should be moved if in fact it is an improvement, on the whole, over the month old package in Woody. Along these lines, I am generally in favor of supporting important, although small market share, archetectures. But I think it might me better for the community as a whole to have a stated policy about appropriate times when a package could be moved from Sid to Woody (FSTW) despite that fact that a build was lacking/lagging for a minor market share processor (MMSP). It's a tradeoff. A large part of the community is in fact hurt to some finite extent by making everyone wait due to a MMSP build not being available. Perhaps the policy might be that a package could be moved FSTW if all but 1 (or 2? n?) MMSF builds were available. A similar line of reasoning would apply to bugs - It's ok to move it if there are mot major bugs that cause extensive loss of functionality. Caveat: I'm not a package maintainer, so have only a Debian user's perspective on this issue. And, also don't know if developers have considered & rejected this idea already, for some reason. Is the above an idea that would be beneficial to be considered by the larger (not just KDE) Debian community? Would it be possible for the K-D community to have a policy of moving KDE specific packeges FSTW different from that of Debian's general policy? Or, maybe there is a way for a maintainer to accomplish this without a policy change - Ex: not upload a new package for a few days, giving the existing Sid package enough time to reach the (what is it?) 2 week stable time so it could migrate on its own. Six months - to me even 1.5 months - just seems like _too long_. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com