On 05/05/11 at 08:51 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 05 mai 2011 à 08:23 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > > > Could you please give a concrete example of where this would be needed? > > > I think all existing cases should be covered by uploading directly to > > > either t-p-u or unstable. > > > > Use case: > > During freeze, there's a library transition in unstable, and a new > > upstream version in unstable. You want to get the new upstream version > > into rolling (not testing), but you can't because it would pull the > > whole transition. > > You don’t need to pull the whole transition, that’s the point of my > proposal. You just need to put the library being transitioned and your > package. > > > So you need a way to upload the new upstream version linked against the > > libraries in rolling. > > Alternatively, if testing is so broken you need that new upstream > version and it can build against the testing libraries, you can use > testing-proposed-updates - in all cases, for both testing and rolling, a > targeted fix being preferable.
That might not be the preferred solution during freeze. I am not sure of how testing-proposed-updates works. Could we: 1. upload package 1.1-1 (the new upstream we want in rolling) to testing-proposed-updates 2. accept package 1.1-1 into rolling 3. upload package 1.0-2 (new version of the package currently in testing, with a targeted fix) to testing-proposed-updates 4. accept package 1.0-2 into testing ? I'm not saying that rolling-proposed-updates should be used frequently, but it sounds more comfortable to have it at hand. Of course, we could also decide to add it later. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110505065831.ga5...@xanadu.blop.info
