Joey wrote: >Packages in unstable have dependencies in unstable which may not be >met in testing, hence they cannot simply be included in testing. >Unfortunately we need to take care of this.
I've come up at least once with a suggestion on how we could avoid this problem and increase the throughput of unstable->testing. However I got virtually no feedback on this. The original description is at http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2003/debian-project-200305/msg00082.html Today, I'd rather describe it as adding a "pre-testing" stage, where packages migration from unstable would not take generated binary deps into account, and candidates for migration out of unstable would be rebuilt against pre-testing for migration. That would allow many packages to migrate much more quickly out of unstable, while still filtering out a good number of early-detected RC bugs. Then the current method for migration into testing can be applied to pre-testing instead of unstable, and since there should be less RC bugs there, as well as less blocker packages (like a recent gcc, glibc, kde, gnome, python, <insert-favorite-here>), packages could eventually migrate more quickly into testing. There _are_ many things to think about, but it may be worth to investigate it, and see how we could handle the potential problems we can think of. >Packages with similar depencency complexity pose the same problems, I'm >sure. A lot of dependencies need to be fulfilled before they can be >included. If somewhere in the chain there is a problem, the package >cannot go in. That's typically the type of problem I'm trying to address with this proposal. [please CC me on followup] Regards, -- Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ? Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux: Pro: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
