Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 14:58 +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit : > > So it's best if you consider unstable always in production-mode by default. > > I disagree with this. We expect *our* users of sid to use things like > apt-listbugs and to be wary of blindly upgrading. I think we should hold > downstream distributions to higher standards. If a downstream distribution > blindly accepts a libc from sid and it doesn't do what they want, imho that's > their fault. Especially with a core package. > > I'm concerned that this attitude, if adopted elsewhere, would paralyze Debian > development, for fear of inconveniencing other distributions.
The point is not to paralyze Debian development, but you should never upload to unstable a package that you *know* is broken. Uploading to unstable means “this should be good enough for a stable release, but it hasn’t been tested against the rest of the distribution”. We usually don’t upload upstream development releases to unstable, yet I don’t see this as “paralyzing Debian development”. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `-
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
