On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:19:49AM +0100, Sander Smeenk wrote: > Quoting Ola Lundqvist ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > Now I too am wondering why 0.85 never made it into stable / testing. > > Probably because it was unable to build on some archs that it has > > been built for earlier. > > Well.. 0.12.2-1 is in testing/stable now, buildd lists: > > | 0.12.2-1 (powerpc) (latest build at Dec 9 21:34: successful) > | 0.12.2-1 (alpha) (latest build at Dec 9 23:14: failed) > | 0.12.2-1 (ia64) (latest build at Dec 9 23:41: successful) > | 0.12.2-1 (hppa) (latest build at Jan 8 00:00: failed) > | 0.12.2-1 (s390) (latest build at Dec 10 04:55: successful) > | 0.12.2-1 (arm) (latest build at Dec 11 19:20: successful) > | 0.12.2-1 (sparc) (latest build at Dec 10 16:16: successful) > | 0.12.2-1 (mipsel) (latest build at Jan 16 12:25: failed) > | 0.12.2-1 (m68k) (latest build at Feb 9 04:31: successful) > > Three failed builds, rest successful. > For 0.85.1-6, latest Gnome1 version ever released: > > | 0.85.1-6 (ia64) (latest build at Jun 10 17:39: successful) > | 0.85.1-6 (alpha) (latest build at Jun 10 06:04: failed) > | 0.85.1-6 (s390) (latest build at Jun 10 07:20: successful) > | 0.85.1-6 (powerpc) (latest build at Jun 10 06:25: successful) > | 0.85.1-6 (arm) (latest build at Jun 10 17:40: successful) > | 0.85.1-6 (m68k) (latest build at Jun 15 01:21: successful) > | 0.85.1-6 (hppa) (latest build at Jul 11 11:30: successful) > > One fail, and two misses (sparc & mipsel). > Why wasn't 0.85.1 accepted into stable then? > > Where can I read about what exact criteria a package has to comply to, > to get accepted into testing?
The criteria is quite simple. All these must be fullfilled. * Upload at least X days old (where X=10 for a urgency low). * No RC bugs filed against the package. * No build failures for an arch where the package has previously been successfully built. * Must not depend on a package that is not in the distribution (per arch). > > > I might have a clue tho. Since $upstream switched to Gnome2 with v0.9x > > > releases of GnomeMeeting while I was still packaging v0.8x releases of > > > GnomeMeeting, I decided it would not be nice to force all users of > > > GnomeMeeting to switch to the Gnome2 version while Gnome2 at that time > > > was very unstable and expirimental, so I created a new package called > > > gnomemeeting2, which surprisingly brought people the Gnome2 version. > > This sounds more like an indication on why it should made it into > > testing and stable. > > To me too. But sadly it didn't get included. And now I have an angry > upstream and a lot of sad users. We're putting up an 'unofficial > apt-source' on gnomemeeting.org though, but it's not the way to go (TM). Well I would find it hard to get into stable. You can talk to the stable release manager though. > > > [ maybe get 0.85.1 in stable & testing ] > > In stable would probably not be accepted. Testing should be possible > > just fix the current issues that hold it back. :) > > Now you're talking about me getting the 0.9x version of gnomemeeting > into testing. This seems like an impossible task for me, if you take a > close look at: > > http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=gnomemeeting > > You can see that the reason why gnomemeeting isn't accepted relies on > the fact that tons of dependencies are unavailable at other > architectures. Well it is just one lib libopenh323-dev that needs to be fixed. The hurd and sh arches is not very important ones because woody was never released for them (as far as i know). > > > I myself, and Damien think it's better for Debian to have v0.85.x. > > Or the one in unstable. :) > > That's almost impossible and would not help that much. For me and Damien > it's more the problem that stable comes with an outdated 0.12.2 release > while there have been other releases in the meanwhile and we do not > understand why 0.85 never made it into the current stable release of > Debian. I suspect that it can be the libopenh323 lib that caused it not to be included. Regards, // Ola > Kind regards, > Sander. > > -- > | Hey.. I'm done talkin'. Now check out my pretty! > | 1024D/08CEC94D - 34B3 3314 B146 E13C 70C8 9BDB D463 7E41 08CE C94D > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
