On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:20:36AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:11:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 04:54:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Here is the relevant section of the .changes file for the package in > > question: > > Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:40:59 +0100 > > Source: kernel-latest-powerpc > > [...] > > Changes: > > kernel-latest-powerpc (101) unstable; urgency=low > > . > > * Typo in debian/control created kernel-headers-2.[46]-powerpc instead > > of > > kernel-headers-2.[46]. Fixing this means another wait in the NEW > > queue :( > > This merely underscores the contrast between Anthony's recommendation -- > > being resourceful enough to find a way to achieve the things you care about > > when no one is interested in helping you -- and what you've done in this > > case -- whine that a name change on *headers* metapackages that are used > > nowhere in the installer prevented you from improving the quality of that > > installer. > It was a damn typo i oversighted in the 100 version. And the mention that > itmeans a wait in the NEW queue was in no way a whining, but an informative > mention to whoever would look in the svn archive for the package wondering why > this problem (which marked kernel-latest-powerpc uninstallable for almost two > month) was indeed solved and waiting in NEW. > and notice that these packages are not used on powerpc because Kamion didn't > modify base-installer to use them, while they are used (unless i am mistaken) > in the x86 case, and in general are meant to be used, which makes changing > kernel possible without rebuilding the base-installer .udeb, and thus allows > more flexibility. According to the changes file, the changes found in the version of kernel-latest-powerpc that was stuck in NEW were *completely orthogonal* to the use of these kernel-image metapackages could be used from within base-installer. NEW processing has *nothing* to do with why base-installer wasn't updated, and you are way off-base in blaming the ftpmasters for this. > Notice also that the metapackages in question where ones transfered from > wheree Jens had put them, namely in the kernel-images themselves, which caused > lot of breakage as you well know once we had more than one kernel version in > the archive. Off-hand, no, I can't think of any breakage that this caused; it's possible Colin took care of it before I noticed it, of course. > I mentioned this fact to Kamion, and he told me he would not bother > ftp-masters about this, since the packages name where to generic for his, and > dismissing my argument that these where the names of the kernel-header > metapackages previously used. Yes, because Colin has the good sense to know that kernel-header metapackages have no bearing on the installer. > I also wrote an email to ftp-masters explaining why it was important that this > package got processed to the d-i release schedule, and also mentioning 2.6.10 > whihc was a potential release candidate, that email was helpfull and nice, but > i got nil reply to it. Well, since you were wrong about it being important to the d-i release schedule, I can't fault them for expediting the package on your say-so, can I? > And i think that this is the real problem here, any mention of the NEW queue > is seen by the ftp-masters and others involved like whining, and there is a > knee-jerk reaction to fully dismiss the issue as far as possible then, while > it may well be some half humorous attempt to get over the frustration of it or > just be informative. No, it's really just absurd posts claiming that lack of NEW processing is preventing them from doing useful work that earn the label of "whining" here. > > And with all that, the kernel-latest-powerpc package is still in an RC > > broken state, because you chose to make a last-minute reorganization of > > kernel-patch-powerpc-2.4.27 without updating kernel-latest-powerpc to match. > > You can hardly blame the ftpmasters for this state of affairs. > Nope, i uploaded the fix. it's in NEW again i think, let me check. Ah, no, > they where accepted on march 5, please check your sources before making such > aggressive claims. Sorry, I missed the changelog on version 102; I didn't realize you'd changed the dependencies of the kernel-image-power[34] metapackages. Retracted. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
