On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 04:42:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:12:10AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > KDE 3 needed a long time until it was hinted into testing.
>
> Ahh, so why did it even needed to be hinted at all?
>
> How much more would testing stay in a releasable state if the manual hinting
> wasn't used at all?
The way testing currently works, nearly no new so-version of a library
can ever enter testing without manual hinting.
An example:
testing:
Package: libfoo0
Source: libfoo
Version: 1-1
Package: myprog
Version: 5-1
Depends: libfoo0
unstable:
Package: libfoo1
Source: libfoo
Version: 2-1
Package: myprog
Version: 5-2
Depends: libfoo1
libfoo version 2-1 isn't allowed to enter testing since this would make
myprog uninstallable in testing
myprog 5-2 isn't allowed to enter testing since this would make myprog
uninstallable in testing.
These two packages need to go into testing at the same time, and the way
the testing scripts currently work this means they need manual hinting.
> Why does testing get out of a releasable state?
> o RC bugs are found after entering testing
"RC bugs" includes security fixes (that might already be in the packages
in unstable)
> what else?
* it doesn't build inside itself since build dependencies aren't checked
by the testing scripts [1]
* it isn't consistent in all respects; e.g. although the package
dependencies might have been fulfilled, it contained for some time a
strange mixture of GNOME 1 and GNOME 2
cu
Adrian
[1] this doesn't has to make testing completely unreleasable, but in
some situations this would e.g. mean that security updates are
non-trivial
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
