Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As for the first. Multi distributions occur so infrequently that it > should not be a problem to do this. Most of the time a package is > already diverged between stable and unstable, so two uploads are still > required in that case for security fixes. Enforcing this just means we > have more consistency. Allowing it for convenience makes no technical > sense.
Perhaps this has been your experience (understably since you maintain a lot of library packages that are actively developed). However, im my experience, I've certainly done my fair share of "stable unstabe" uploads, and I do not welcome the prospect of having to double those just to solve some non-existant problem. > As for allowing them in cases where they don't fall into any of my > listed points of breakage, I ask that you give a solid technical reason > why even those should be allowed, other than simple convienience. I see > no reason for it. In fact, the only technical reason was back when we > had frozen/unstable uploads, and they do not occur any longer. As I said, it is a good thing to have packages compiled against old libc-dev packages since that actually tests whether libc6 has been true its words when it says that its ABI is still the same. In any case, IMHO the more interesting question is why they shouldn't be allowed in this case? However, my main objection to this proposal is that it solves none of your problems as disallowing simultaneous uploads does not equate to disallowing the building of unstable packages on stable. So in fact you're proposing the wrong solution to your problems. Which has the unfortunate side effect that some maintainers will be wasting time doing double compiles that they know will come out to be the same. -- Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
