On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:23:36PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > NEW processing happens whether the new package is meant for unstable or > experimental. Whether the package is in unstable or experimental does
True. > not change how that package gets tested. It can affect how that package > affects the release. Yes, also true. > Having packages in experimental does not block the ability to test or > upload other packages which depend on functionality in those new > versions - you just need an appropriate setup, maybe a chroot. Wrong. When I upload something which depends on a package which isn't available this is uninstallable -> useless. And testing is not only "local machine" but "testing in experimental". (see above.) By *real usage*. (There have already been upgrade bugs found by people using my packages in experimental) > Even if you think there are a few days between the time taken to process > NEW for experimental vs NEW for unstable, I've seen no evidence of that > and it's not as if a few days are really going to matter. (If it's that > critical, find a webhost running Debian and install reprepro.) A few days? There's stuff there *for months*? And yes, I do people.debian.org. That's not the same as experimental. (E.g. builds on the majority of architectures will be untested. People will not look there, etc.) > What's so hard about that with the R packages? Read and think again, please. I am not caring about R and I am not defeinibg Direk. In contrast, he should have known that he shouldn't upload. I am telling about the general case. That your simple toy packages are not affected by this because they don't have as much r-deps as e.g. libreoffice. fine. But that doesn't make the problem go non-existant. Regards, Rene -- 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/20130401134644.ge31...@rene-engelhard.de
