* Adeodato Simó [Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:25:10 +0100]:
> * Raphael Geissert [Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:32:51 -0600]:
> > > Removing GNOME from testing because something depends on libfrufru1 isn't
> > > a win for testing's usability.
> > It would only last until it is able to migrate without breaking anyt
* Raphael Geissert [Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:32:51 -0600]:
> > Removing GNOME from testing because something depends on libfrufru1 isn't
> > a win for testing's usability.
> It would only last until it is able to migrate without breaking anything. I
> think this is just a matter of deciding which way
* Richard Atterer [Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:34:17 +0100]:
> At the very least, there should be an auto-generated web page listing
> packages in testing that are currently unreleasable!
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00836.html
--
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
-- Rory
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:17:28PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> 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 si
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> As said above, failures to build against the new library are RC from
> day 0, and the intention is not to do transitions while those are
> open, other constraints permitting.
Cool.
> As for packages that are rebuilt in unstable but not migrated, I
> do
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:17:28PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> 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 th
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 pract
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.]
Adeodato's proposal makes a lot of sense,
* Steve Langasek [Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:55:50 -0700]:
Hello, Steve.
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 04:44:08PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Now, this has its own set of problems and caveats as well, since if you
> > don’t pay attention and take care of later cleanup, you end up with
> > packages in te
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 th
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 04:44:08PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Now, this has its own set of problems and caveats as well, since
> > if you don’t pay attention and take care of later cleanup, you end
> > up with packages in testing that do not belong
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 04:44:08PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Now, this has its own set of problems and caveats as well, since if you
> don’t pay attention and take care of later cleanup, you end up with
> packages in testing that do not belong to any source in testing, which
> is bad.
Will the
Hello,
this mail is to talk a bit about the current situation regarding
transitions in unstable. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that the
Release Team has had to insist on semi-serializing them, because that’s
not the kind of development you want to have in unstable right after a
release.
Execut
13 matches
Mail list logo
