On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 06:35:16PM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:59:38AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > > They weren't coordinated within the team. Furthermore I don't consider > > that eglibc was ready to go to unstable, as it was known that two > > architectures were going to FTBFS, without a real try to get that fixed > > (for example by contacting the porters). > > I'll absolutely take blame for not trying harder to contact more porters > than just you on IRC. On the flip side, I don't think I'm entirely off > my rocker in thinking that maybe porters with direct commit access to the > packaging might have cared that eglibc has been FTBFS in experimental for > four and a half months. This isn't new. And, as we've discovered today,
This isn't something new, but people tends to be busy and have to set priorities. I personally didn't know that the deadline was two days after the release, and I think it was the same for other people who could have fix that. I still don't understand why this sudden rush. > most of the fixes required were really quite trivial (though we're not > quite done yet). True, but the build still fails early. And the testsuite hasn't run yet. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- 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/20130508005215.gk4...@ohm.aurel32.net
