On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 23:35, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > On Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:04:33 PM Sandro Tosi wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 22:50, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: >> > On Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:20:04 PM Sandro Tosi wrote: >> >> To give a (fresh) example and what I meant above, you can try to >> >> answer this provocative question: Why Ubuntu has Python 2.7.3 since >> >> more than 2 days (even before it was publicly announced) while Debian >> >> is still stuck with a RC, FingTBFS on 4 archs version? >> > >> > Probably because Ubuntu is a day before final freeze for a release. I >> > virtually always upload stuff to Debian first where I'm the Debian >> > maintainer for a package, but there are legitimate reasons why in some >> > cases that's not the best way to go about it. >> >> exactly my point as in "that usually means there are different priorities >> when working for Debian over Ubuntu" >> >> > We all get busy with $DAYJOB every now and then and that's OK. >> >> funny how in this case the dayjob overlaps the "hobby", so I guess one >> could have achieved the best for both distro with minimal effort (as >> the changelog for previous syncs suggest) but decided to just go with >> one only. > > It's not that simple. Depending on the timing of various processes in > Debian/Ubuntu there can be a substantial (as much as a day) delay from Debian > upload to when a package can be synced into Ubuntu. When you're only two or > three days from a freeze, that can be unacceptable.
I see; another point for having Debian maintainers whose main interest is making Debian the best distro. > FWIW, I saw him discussing it on #debian-release at least briefly today. well, he was asked (sorry, I don't have that line of log here) when python will start building again, and the only reply was <doko> jcristau, sure, just disabling the tests ... but please ask port maintainers as well. I now got some feedback from kfreebsd porters (still on the line of http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/python2.7/news/20120405T171854Z.html where FTBFS are "delegated" to porters but without notifying them first) but he was also pointed out that: <pinotree> doko: i guess the one to ask, as maintainer of said source, should be you then nothing else; not exactly a discussion, but oh well > BTW, it is just this kind of nitpicking that I think would make a *defaults > team with doko and an interpreter team with you problematic. non sequitur: it doesn't show how python*-default <-> pythonX.Y interactions would be problematic, only that, IMO, pythonX.Y is poorly maintained in Debian, since nothing has changed on that side. Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cab4xwxznk9paqcuhv31gfsubscupkkgv-b7eb9vrp+pxpyg...@mail.gmail.com
