On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 01:57:20PM +0200, Georges Mariano wrote: > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:43:35 +0200 > Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 06:30:41PM +0200, Georges Mariano wrote: > > > Would it be possible to set up an entry in the BTS for > > > "debian-ocaml-maint" where general bugs (i.e not related to a > > > specific package) may be stored ... > > > > I doubt, our community is too smal, anyway ... > Ok, but BTW, this has nothing to do with the size of the related > community (just need to have a dummy package debian-ocaml-maint, of > course correcting these bugs is not mandatory since there is no > maintainer...) > > > > Please build the packages for woody (>stable< release) *first* > > > > > > and, why not, please provide one "experimental" source (if one is > > > needed) [may be by using something like Savannah to have a common > > > repository (or somewhere in debian.org's world)] > > >From my point of view, the following does not make sense > > These are not bugs, debian practice requires that new packages are > > uploaded to (and therefor built for) unstable, > > I don't understand why you say "therefor..."!? "unstable" is just a > repository area (not a running machine AFAIK). So, of course package > have to be uploaded there but they only have to be built for the > client machines (e.g. mine ;-) which may be potato/woody/sarge... > > Well, do you mean that autobuilders are running sarge ?? (which may > be a "good" explanation of what you said)
No, the autobuilder are running sid, naturally. There may be special cases for the autobuilders for stable/proposed-updates (you know the problem which delayed woody almost 3 month), but for the most common case, all packages are built with sid. > > only when really > > needed packages are built and uploaded to stable directly. > This is not what I meant. In other words, to be more precise, if you > build your package in a woody/chroot, your packages will reach > "unstable" with the strictly neeeded dependencies (in this case, > ocaml-ioxml will be also **correctly** built, uploaded into sarge, but > with the dependance on ocaml-3.04 not ocaml-3.06). No, new package built are targeted for sarge, and thus must be built on a unstable box. There will be no addition to stable anyway, so there is no need to build packages for it. Apart of the woody rebuilt effort Stefano is maintaining as a voluntary work. > Of course, If your are not interested in providing packages with the > minimal dependencies, well, go ahead... and users have to wait sarge > to become the new stable release. All new packages will be built in priority for unstable and migrate into testing/future sarge. You can always do a apt-get -t sarge install package if you want. Friendly, Sven Luther
