-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As most of you know, it can be a pain to test and roll packages over
to stable from unstable, particularly when they have huge dependency
trees.
I propose the following phased process:
Phase 1:
Since people have been testing packages (presumably) bef
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/30/11 8:06 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> As most of you know, it can be a pain to test and roll packages
> over to stable from unstable, particularly when they have huge
> dependency trees.
>
> I propose the following phased process:
>
> Phase 1
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:30:46 -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> On 9/30/11 8:06 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> > As most of you know, it can be a pain to test and roll packages
> > over to stable from unstable, particularly when they have huge
> > dependency trees.
> > > I propose the following phas
Am 04.10.2011 um 07:18 schrieb Daniel Macks:
[...]
>> I'll take that as a 'no', and we can go ahead and start Phase 1.
>>
>> We are not currently freezing the CVS tree.
>>
>> Maintainers should audit their packages in 10.4 and check for items
>> that are identical in 10.4/stable and 10.4/uns
On Oct 5, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Max Horn wrote:
> Also, one "reverse" case:
>
> Validating package file ./stable/main/finkinfo/database/sqlite3-x86_64.info...
> Error: can't find patchfile "./stable/main/finkinfo/database/sqlite3.patch"
That's my fault. I just deleted sqlite3-x86_64.info since it'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/5/11 10:31 AM, Max Horn wrote:
>
> Am 04.10.2011 um 07:18 schrieb Daniel Macks:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I'll take that as a 'no', and we can go ahead and start Phase
>>> 1.
>>>
>>> We are not currently freezing the CVS tree.
>>>
>>> Maintainers sho
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:31:56 +0200, Max Horn wrote:
> Am 04.10.2011 um 07:18 schrieb Daniel Macks:
> >
> > I just did a full sweep of 10.4/unstable and (with the exception of
> a > few corner cases) purged it of all .info that exactly matched the
> one > in 10.4/stable (and also the parallel-name
Am 05.10.2011 um 16:56 schrieb Alexander Hansen:
[...]
>>
>> The semi-automatic move of packages from unstable to stable caused
>> some collateral damage in some cases. Namely if multiple .info
>> files shared a single patch file, and some of the .info files and
>> the .patch were moved to s
Am 05.10.2011 um 18:41 schrieb Daniel Macks:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:31:56 +0200, Max Horn wrote:
>> Am 04.10.2011 um 07:18 schrieb Daniel Macks:
>>>
>>> I just did a full sweep of 10.4/unstable and (with the exception of
>> a > few corner cases) purged it of all .info that exactly matched the
On 6 Oct 2011, at 21:25, Max Horn wrote:
>
> Am 05.10.2011 um 18:41 schrieb Daniel Macks:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:31:56 +0200, Max Horn wrote:
>>> Am 04.10.2011 um 07:18 schrieb Daniel Macks:
I just did a full sweep of 10.4/unstable and (with the exception of
>>> a > few corne
Hi there,
so, we should make sure this plan keeps moving on...
Am 30.09.2011 um 14:06 schrieb Alexander Hansen:
[..]
> Phase 1:
> Since people have been testing packages (presumably) before committing
> them to 10.7/stable, that tree is indeed pretty stable. We'll start
> by moving all packag
11 matches
Mail list logo