On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:43:05PM -0500, steve wrote: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 10:46:52PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > However, if the rebuilt libqt2 gets into testing before the rebuilt > > > KDE apps, then the latter will suddenly break for everyone using the > > > "testing" distribution. It seems prudent to hold up the migration to > > > testing until all the packages are ready to go. > > > > This is not something that can be done with bugs, > > I don't understand why you say that. It occurs to me now that you are probably thinking of moving the set of packages *into* testing once they are all rebuilt, whereas I was concentrating on keeping them *out* of testing. I think one can easily keep them out of testing with an RC bug. Initially, I thought it would suffice to wait ten days, then close the bug to get everything moved into testing: > > > Therefore, I'd like to reopen Bug #126808 on libqt2 and set its > > > severity to "critical". I believe that would keep the new libqt2 > > > (and everything that depends on it) out of testing. When all the > > > packages are ready, we would wait ten days (so that all the packages > > > become candidates for "testing"), then close the bug. Upon reflection, I see the flaw in this strategy: if one of the applications using libqt2 has its own RC bug, that application will not migrate, and will get broken when the updated libqt2 gets put into testing. Tough problem. I guess forcing things manually is one way around it, but it sounds more and more like AJ was right in suggesting that libqt2 ought to change SONAME. Still, I think it would be wise to keep libqt2 out of testing until this all gets worked out, one way or the other. -Steve -- by Rocket to the Moon, by Airplane to the Rocket, by Taxi to the Airport, by Frontdoor to the Taxi, by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ... - They Might Be Giants
