(Moving from debian-release -- followups probably belong in debian-project) Steve Langasek (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00010.html): > "Not buildable" -> "not releasable." This is not a new concept.
Steve Langasek (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00008.html): >Is it currently releasable? If not, then there's no reason to keep it >in testing, is there? This sums up why I proposed its removal from testing (*not* from unstable). There really is no argument against this given that "testing" is supposed to be in a "releasable state" at all times! (Admittedly, that doesn't often happen, but it's certainly better to try than not to try!) Steve Langasek (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00010.html): >Removing packages from testing is the domain of the release manager; >removing packages from unstable (and NEW queue processing) is the domain >of the ftp-master team at large. Unless you mean for the release >manager to prioritize the general queue management work above the >specific release management work, I don't see how the two are much >related. Sven Luther (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00011.html), regarding the release manager: >Which is also an ftp-master, OK, this is a valid point. I agree that general queue management work *should* be prioritized over specific release management work. This might best be accomplished by having more people who aren't release manager as ftpmasters. :-) Sven Luther (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00011.html): >Yep, or at least provide some feedback about the issue. Right now, they >are like a black hole where nothing ever comes out, and the only way to >get attention is to make a week long rant on the public mailing lists, >which worked for aj some month back, but is lost on elmo, which has me >black-listed anyway. He's far from the only person to complain about non-responsiveness of the ftpmasters. Probably this should move to debian-policy, since it's gotten off-topic for debian-release. Sven Luther (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00011.html): >parted is used for debian-installer, >without which we cannot release, while advi is probably used by less >than 1% of our users, and nobody will really miss it if it is removed in >the last minute. Quite right. So nobody will miss it if it is removed now, either. From *testing*, mind you; a fixed version in unstable will propagate to testing *as usual* even if the current version is removed from testing. OK? Anyway, the RM claimed that sarge would be released *already*, so claims that the release is "far away" are very questionable. I have not proposed removals from unstable without great thought and lots of evidence. Removals from testing are another matter. Sven Luther (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2003/debian-release-200312/msg00011.html): >And seriously, i am a bit demotivated. I past hours and days compiling >powerpc kernels, each build needing 6 hours of compile time, working >around bugs and bad design in kernel-package, and loosing time i could >otherwise have spent on other stuff, just to have the package die in the >NEW queue limbo. What good is my participation into debian if my work is >threated like shit ? Not to speak about the time last year when i >suddenly, on the 30 of december, receive a mail from elmo telling me >that the way we handle api changes in the ocaml package was not >acceptable to the buildd, without further explanation, and i, instead of >passing a nice sylvester, ask him for details, i get killfiled by him, >and let to wonder in the dark ? And all this, just to see other packages >do exactly the same thing a few months later ? See previous complaints. Debian clearly has some serious problems; I personally credited some of them to James Troup once. The surprising part about that was that I was then told by several other people, "Well, you've prevented yourself from ever becoming a Debian Developer now; he'll never let you in." I hope that that is not true, and personally I have no reason to believe that it's true. However, the fact that several Debian Developers -- ones who have not discussed the topics on public mailing lists, apparently out of fear of blacklisting! -- *believe* it to be true is very disturbing, and provides in and of itself evidence of serious communication problems. -- Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc.gnu.org> http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
