Sergio Brandano wrote: > >> ... by the way, yes it is *unstable*, I know it. But this must not > >> necessarily imply that it *must* crash, right? One can also upload > >> the new packages and leave the freedom to the others to do some > >> beta-testing or keep the old one, right? > > > Right, but when people develop on i386 or whatever, and upload > > source packages, which are built by autobuilders for the other > > platforms, one should expect that things might not work. > > > > I think that's one reason autobuilders are prohibited from uploading > > to frozen/ as well as stable/. > > I perfectly agree, but you are not adding much to what I said. > > Please have a look at the directory > /debian/dists/frozen/main/binary-powerpc/x11 > > where > enlightenment-data_0.16.3-7.deb > enlightenment-theme-bluesteel_0.16.3-7.deb > enlightenment-theme-brushedmetal_0.16.3-7.deb > enlightenment-theme-shinymetal_0.16.3-7.deb > > but > enlightenment_0.16.3-6.deb
And you have not heard what I said: this happens on every non-i386 platform all the time. The _all.debs get updated with the newest binary upload from the author/maintainer who built it for i386 (or whatever). The _ppc.debs don't get updated until the autobuilder uploads it (for unstable), or a maintainer uploads the ppc binary for frozen or stable. Hence the problem. This is why you need to hold the _all.debs when a _ppc.deb is built, so you can have the same version of _all and _ppc.debs, and it won't upgrade the _all.debs until the next time you want it to. > Shall we conclude that ``frozen'' is, de facto, a synonym for > ``unstable''? Or shall frozen better contain the 0.16.3-6 packages? It should not be considered stable until it is called so. Wait another month or two. -Adam P.
