Hello, On Sun 09 Mar 2025 at 01:57pm GMT, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Do I assume correctly that this principle can be weakened for > experimental-NEW? > > As a general principle I think uploads to NEW that are more complicated than a > completely new leaf package should usually be to experimental, unless there is > a reason why this specific package can't (for example if foo_2.0 is already in > experimental and now the maintainer needs a package-split or a new SONAME for > foo_1.2 in unstable). A lot of the time the NEW package will need a new > sourceful upload after it's been accepted *anyway*, to get a source-only > upload that can migrate to testing - and if the package is in binary-NEW > because it has a new SONAME, it's better to have the maintainer and not the > ftp team be in control of the point at which it hits unstable and starts a > transition. > > Does the ftp team agree with that as a general idea? And if a largeish > dependency graph needs uploading together, is it OK to upload them all to > experimental-NEW, with the idea that if the ftp team accepts them in the wrong > order they'll just sit in BD-Uninstallable status until the whole batch has > been processed, with no real harm done? Yes, I think that is fine. -- Sean Whitton
