On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 01:32:06AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Rene Engelhard wrote: > > Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-27 23:31]: > > > > If you feel it only justifies an urgency=medium upload, then that's > > > > what I would recommend. This means it probably won't make the > > > > freeze, since medium is 5 days and the 31st is 4 days from now, but > > > > those are the breaks.
> > > I think the 31st should apply to uploads to unstable rather than > > > testing. You basically came with your freeze announcement completely > > > out of the blue and said testing will freeze in 6 days, not giving > > > maintainers any chance at all to make normal uploads which take 10 > > > days to propogate to testing. This could lead to a) packages being > > > uploaded in a rush even tough they are not well tested and b) them > > a problem I see *NOW* is that gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4 (libgcc1 where all new > > stuff is built against) were uploaded with urgency high and therefore > > could make the freeze but gtk+2.0 was some days before with _low_ and it > > is now only 3/10 days old. > And now gtk+2.0 (on which the gcc-3.4 sourcepkg - libgcj5-awt - depends) > is 1/5 days old *and depends on the libtiff transition*. This is being addressed by removing gcc-3.4's dependency on gtk+2.0 altogether for sarge. AIUI, libgcj5-awt will continue to be built, but it will no longer contain GTK+ support. The consensus at this time is that the freeze will proceed as planned, and fixed versions of gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4 will be allowed in immediately via testing-proposed-updates. (It's a coin-toss whether it's better to use t-p-u or try to special-case gcc in the freeze). We are also expecting that a fixed binutils package will need to be allowed in immediately via t-p-u, due to outstanding breakage on hppa and mips. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
