On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 04:17:43 PM Iain Lane wrote: > Hiya, > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 03:55:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > […] > > > > > All three cases have in common that the packages were left alone for > > > months. The third example could have been avoided if we could check > > > build dependencies when syncing, and rejecting the sync when the > > > b-d's are not fulfilled (although there should be an override > > > option). > > > > I don't want to add extra archive-admin checking to the sync process; > > firstly, we're moving towards self-service syncs anyway, and secondly, > > as the libav example shows, syncs aren't really special here. > > > > More discipline for library upgrades would indeed be a good thing. > > The main problem seems to be library upgrades that don't really have > > anyone looking after them (and this is worst when it's Ubuntu-local or > > from Debian experimental; at least in unstable the Debian release team > > usually cares to some extent). IMO, we should make it clear that if > > you sync or merge a library from experimental then it is your > > responsibility to ensure that all reverse-dependencies are ported. > > Right: if you introduce a SONAME bump (or similar) you should care for > it. This cycle the burden has fallen upon those who choose to care for > the NBS list, and that's neither fair nor sustainable. > > Most of these uploads will have to go through binary NEW so that is a > good opportunity to check with the uploader that they plan to address > the ramifications of the uploads they introduce. > > If people cannot be trusted to take care of their transitions (if, after > a time of enforcing this additional social pressure the situation is > still not improving enough) then the release team can step in and ask > that such uploads be run through them first, in a > similar-but-not-as-complicated role to that played by the Debian release > team. > > As we rely quite heavily on Debian for QA anyway, we can probably only > care for those transitions happening in Ubuntu first (as you said).
When I started a library transition I've always felt it was my job to drive it to closure. I don't think it matters much if it's a post DIF merge/sync from Unstable or some upload from Experimental, the potential issues are the same. There's more risk of it being harder from Experimental, but I think that's a difference of degree, not kind. If it's not clear that developers are responsible for this, then we ought to communicate this better (and I include if you sponsor such an upload/sync then I think you are on the hook for this, it's not just up to the non-developer you are sponsoring - hopefully they'll do this, but you (the developer) are the one responsible). If people won't take care of their transitions (or make a best effort and seek help - sometimes these things turn out to be way harder than one person can deal with), then I question if they are people that should be Ubuntu developers. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
