Steve Langasek a écrit :
source packages that need to be updated! As a result, the release
team asks that the maintainers refrain from uploads of these packages for
any reason without coordination with the release team, until this
transition completes; uncoordinated uploads will most likely lead
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051031 14:31]:
> So it seems that unstable is again, as before the release, half-frozen.
> Maybe we could change its name?
>
> Seriously, I begin to consider that as a real problem. I am not blaming
> you, release maintainers, you are doing your job. From my
Re: Aurelien Jarno in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So I would like to propose to drop testing during a limited period of
> time (let's say 4 months) after the release, to have the time to make
> all the necessary big transitions.
Isn't that what has effectively happened? Now unstable is in shape,
and t
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For the first time over the past months, we are now able to get a
> comprehensive look at just which packages are involved in this
> transition -- around 300 source packages that need to be updated!
> As a result, the release team asks that the maintai
On Monday 31 October 2005 09:54 am, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > For the first time over the past months, we are now able to get a
> > comprehensive look at just which packages are involved in this
> > transition -- around 300 source packages that need
> Steve Langasek a écrit :
> So I would like to propose to drop testing during a limited period of
> time (let's say 4 months) after the release, to have the time to make
> all the necessary big transitions. If the period of time is limited, the
> stable distribution will not be too out-dated, so t
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> source packages that need to be updated! As a result, the release
>> team asks that the maintainers refrain from uploads of these packages for
>> any reason without coordination with the release team, until this
>> transition completes; uncoordinated uploads will most like
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I know that it is to late for etch, but that could apply for etch + 1.
> What do you think?
I think this is the wrong way to go.
The major problem which has caused major clogs in 'testing' is that
different transitions have been getting tied up with each other. This has
a
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The enormous ABI transitions have been particularly hard, of course. If
> we can avoid ABI-breaking transitions in the future it would help. :-) I
> think we have a poor image of the effectiveness of 'testing' because *both*
> of the last two relea
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The enormous ABI transitions have been particularly hard, of course. If
>> we can avoid ABI-breaking transitions in the future it would help. :-)
>> I think we have a poor image of the effectiveness of 'testing' bec
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 02:54:49PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The enormous ABI transitions have been particularly hard, of course. If
> we can avoid ABI-breaking transitions in the future it would help. :-)
Wholly unrealistic. Libraries *do* undergo ABI changes; there are only a
handful o
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 02:30:56PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Steve Langasek a écrit :
> >source packages that need to be updated! As a result, the release
> >team asks that the maintainers refrain from uploads of these packages for
> >any reason without coordination with the release team, unt
Scripsit Josh Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Monday 31 October 2005 09:54 am, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> This confuses me a bit; I thought that 'autotrace' was in the mess too
>> (due to libmagick and libpstoedit transitions), and had an upload to
>> make it installable-in-sid planned for tonight
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:29:58AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Josh Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Monday 31 October 2005 09:54 am, Henning Makholm wrote:
> >> This confuses me a bit; I thought that 'autotrace' was in the mess too
> >> (due to libmagick and libpstoedit transitions
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Josh Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Monday 31 October 2005 09:54 am, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
>>> This confuses me a bit; I thought that 'autotrace' was in the mess too
>>> (due to libmagick and libpstoedit transitions), and had an upload to
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:29:58AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Interesting. I don't think anybody will miss autotrace in testing for
>> the time being (it exists mostly because it's a build-dependency of
>> something), but it would be nice if the
Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> This is a reasonable concern, but the standing policy is that if a package
>> is RC-buggy, it's a candidate for removal from testing at any time.
> The fact that "it is a candidate for removal" is a comp
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 12:41:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> So, would anybody object if I set up a cronjob that emails the PTS
> whenever a (source) package propagates to, or is removed from, testing?
I won't so nobody'd object; but it's one of the things we agreed we
wanted at the Vancouve
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:00:46AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> No it's not.
>
>RC bug, still in testing -> fixing this is very important, because
>it may hold up the testing migration of other packages.
>
>RC bug, not in testing -> fixing this only affects this one
>pa
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 12:41:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> So, would anybody object if I set up a cronjob that emails the PTS
>> whenever a (source) package propagates to, or is removed from, testing?
>
> I won't so nobody'd object; but it's one of the things we ag
Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, would anybody object if I set up a cronjob that emails the PTS
> whenever a (source) package propagates to, or is removed from, testing?
It turns out that PTS mail does not ordinary get sent to the
maintainer address, only to third-party subscrib
Op di, 01-11-2005 te 18:21 +0100, schreef Henning Makholm:
> Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > So, would anybody object if I set up a cronjob that emails the PTS
> > whenever a (source) package propagates to, or is removed from, testing?
>
> It turns out that PTS mail does not or
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 02:54:49PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The enormous ABI transitions have been particularly hard, of course. If
>> we can avoid ABI-breaking transitions in the future it would help. :-)
>
> Wholly unrealistic. Libraries *do* undergo ABI chan
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Well, the build-dependencies became fixed about 4 days ago (courtesy
> of a NMU by yours truly). Is 4 days enough to get something removed
> from testing?
Well, if you're curious, in this case autotrace had to be removed because
pstoedit had to be removed, and pstoedit had
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [051101 17:23]:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 12:41:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > So, would anybody object if I set up a cronjob that emails the PTS
> > whenever a (source) package propagates to, or is removed from, testing?
> I won't so nobody'd obje
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 02:49:27PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> (Hmm, I wish there was a way there to pay him to change the priorities
> -- what britney needs most is proper version tracking support for its RC bug
> analysis, and I'd give some money for that; that's not listed in the notes
> fo
Scripsit Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [051101 17:23]:
>> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 12:41:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> > So, would anybody object if I set up a cronjob that emails the PTS
>> > whenever a (source) package propagates to, or is re
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:20:45AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Second, thanks to some enhancements Ryan Murray has recently made to
> buildd/wanna-build, it is now possible for the release team to
> request automated buildd binNMUs of a package across all
> architectures for library transitions
Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have now a frst draft of a status-change mail system running. it
> works from the archive mirror on merkel, and sends out mail to
> @packages.debian.prg, with Bcc to the PTS
> It does not yet produce -testing-changes emails.
Now it does.
--
Hen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [051101 17:23]:
> >> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 12:41:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> >> > So,
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:13:25AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:20:45AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Second, thanks to some enhancements Ryan Murray has recently made to
> > buildd/wanna-build, it is now possible for the release team to
> > request automated bu
Steve Langasek wrote:
> We're only talking about keeping old binary packages around which
> are no longer available from the new source package, which is precisely the
> case that is at issue with library transitions.
Ahhh. I get it. Just don't remove the old binaries unless they're manually
me
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:20:06PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > We're only talking about keeping old binary packages around which
> > are no longer available from the new source package, which is precisely the
> > case that is at issue with library transitions.
> Ahhh
33 matches
Mail list logo
