Hi, On Sunday 29 March 2009, Mark Purcell wrote: > I would recommend you do what you did for v0.5.0b and upload to > experimental. > > That way at least there will be a fixed version in the Debian archive > albeit this won't fix the version in unstable. Unstable isn't supposed to > be fully working all the time, hence the name.
hm, thanks for your answer. You'll have guessed that it does not make me entirely happy, though. > We are using experimental as a staging ground for KDE4.2 to see what works/ > what doesn't work etc. As you can no doubt appreciate the transition to > KDE4.2 is a complex beast which does take time in the planning. I do have a rough idea of the dimension of this beast, and I really, really don't want to make that task any harder for you. But I'm also very interested in getting a fixed version of rkward into unstable. Well, here's another way to put my question: I have found a hack/solution to work around ban-unstable-uploads. I've tested it locally, and it appears to work. So my question changes into: Should I go ahead and upload to unstable with that hack, or would that cause more trouble than it's worth? Right now, I think I should upload (or rather have my sponsor upload). This is based on the following reasoning/assumptions: - Current version of rkward in unstable is completely broken. Looking only at rkward, there is no way to make things any worse. - The purpose of ban-unstable-uploads is to protect application packagers from having their packages broken by changes in kdelibs/base. Of course such protection only work, where packages aren't already based on KDE4, and such protection only makes sense, where packages aren't already broken. - I risk sitting on a broken rkward package again, soon, but neither is that worse than the current situation, nor does uploading to experimental instead of unstable protect me/rkward users from such breakage. - The Debian KDE maintainers do not need to worry about breaking rkward, so their work will not be affected either way. Please let me know, if this reasoning is flawed. Regards Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
