Hey Steve,
On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 07:38:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 09:25:52AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > Am 06.01.24 um 06:51 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> > > > > - dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the
> > > > > default
> > > > > flags
> > > [...]
> > > What about the suggestion to not push changes to experimental for packages
> > > that already have new versions in experimental, and do the binary package
> > > renames in unstable instead, leaving the package in experimental alone?
>
> > How does that play together with the needed dpkg only in experimental?
>
> > You can't build stuff for unstable involving experimental packages (except
> > manually with binary upload, which would block testing migration)
>
> The ordering here would be:
>
> - dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the default
> flags
>
> - the source packages which need an ABI change
> ("source-packages"+"lfs-and-depends-time_t") and do not already have
> versions in experimental, will have sourceful NMUs to experimental with
> the new binary package names in order to clear binary NEW, in coordination
>
> - once these packages have all cleared binary NEW, the new dpkg defaults
> will be uploaded to unstableWhat happened to the plan to workaround this by doing dak database shenanigans prior to uploading to avoid binary-NEW altogether, that I chatted about with mhy/#debian-ftp and you? Did that not work out? -- debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
