On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 11:48:01AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:49:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 05:39:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > We have not changed gnome2.4 packages for > > > > weeks/months, if you fear for sarge we just need to put a RC bug on > > > > atk/glib/gtk/pango from Gnome2.6 in unstable. > > > > > > There's no "just" about that. Doing that really does screw things up > > > pretty majorly: packages in unstable with RC bugs need to be fixed > > > _quickly_. Not immediately, maybe, but not after months and months either. > > > > So, the right thing is to fix the testing-proposed-update mechanism to > > make that happen, is it not ? What is actually the problem in having the > > testing script applied to testing-proposed-updates also, and have it > > being autobuilt ? > > That's actually exactly the current state. However, it's more difficult > to get user testing of t-p-u uploads before they get into testing, so > it's not really something we want to rely on too much.
Ah, last we tried this in february or so, testing-proposed-update was not being autobuilt, and the result was that it was not usable for debian-installer, but then maybe it has changed since then ? If so, then this is the ideal method for solving the current problem, and we could quite well upload gnome 2.6 to experimental and use t-p-u for RC bug fixes in testing should they show up, since this will not be a often occuring thing at this stage of the gnome 2.4 presence in sarge. Now, there still remains the problem of loads of other non-gnome packages that needs to be rebuilt against gnome 2.6, but maybe there is no way around this in the current state of things. Friendly, Sven Luther
