On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:34:52PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > FWIW, I do all my development under testing. I virtually ignore unstable
> > unless I need a specific package from it.
> AFAIK, I cannot do that. If I build against testing, I help the breakage by
> adding yet anothe
> "Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Herbert> That means the library maintainer has stuffed up. If
Herbert> he's done it properly, his libraries can go into testing
Herbert> wihtout having to wait for all its users to recompile.
Herbert> This used to be insign
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I do all my development under testing. I virtually ignore unstable
>> unless I need a specific package from it.
> AFAIK, I cannot do that. If I build against testing, I help the breakage
On Tue, 08 May 2001, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Henrique> AFAIK, I cannot do that. If I build against testing, I
> Henrique> help the breakage by adding yet another package that
> Henrique> depends on the outdated libraries that are in testing,
> Or your could do shared library versions corr
> "Henrique" == Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henrique> AFAIK, I cannot do that. If I build against testing, I
Henrique> help the breakage by adding yet another package that
Henrique> depends on the outdated libraries that are in testing,
Henrique> th
On Mon, 07 May 2001, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:51:12PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Most of us don't bother too much with testing, unless we're trying to get
> > something into testing for one particular reason or another (such as, the
> > package in testin
On Tue, 08 May 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Most of us don't bother too much with testing, unless we're trying to get
> > something into testing for one particular reason or another (such as, the
> > package in testing is too damn buggy, or ha
Paul Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Possible scenario:
>> 1.0-3 has some major changes and accidentially fixes an RC-bug in
>> 1.0-2, before _anybody_ noticed it in 1.0-2.
>> 1.0-2 goes into testing and BLAM.
> Surely, the maintainer can then close (or downgrade) the RC bug, saying
> it's fi
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 07:34:32AM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Possible scenario:
> 1.0-3 has some major changes and accidentially fixes an RC-bug in
> 1.0-2, before _anybody_ noticed it in 1.0-2.
> 1.0-2 goes into testing and BLAM.
Surely, the maintainer can then close (or downgrade) the RC
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
>> That's not true at all. It's quite possible (although probably a little
>> unlikely) to maintain your packages from a box running stable, if you like.
> I'ld rather not see people do that: it means we'll also be stuck
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> That's not true at all. It's quite possible (although probably a little
> unlikely) to maintain your packages from a box running stable, if you like.
I'ld rather not see people do that: it means we'll also be stuck with
using old libraries when much newer ones mig
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 07:29:31PM +1000 , Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 11:05:49AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> > On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 06:42:33PM +1000 , Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > FWIW, I do all my development under testing. I virtually ignore unstable
> > > unless I need a specifi
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 11:05:49AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 06:42:33PM +1000 , Herbert Xu wrote:
> > FWIW, I do all my development under testing. I virtually ignore unstable
> > unless I need a specific package from it.
> but autobuilders will still compile with unstable,
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 06:42:33PM +1000 , Herbert Xu wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Most of us don't bother too much with testing, unless we're trying to get
> > something into testing for one particular reason or another (such as, the
> > package in testing
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 08:25:53PM +0200 , Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Most of us don't bother too much with testing, unless we're trying to get
> > something into testing for one particular reason or another (such as, the
> > package in testing is too damn buggy, or has a security hole).
>
> Whow!
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most of us don't bother too much with testing, unless we're trying to get
> something into testing for one particular reason or another (such as, the
> package in testing is too damn buggy, or has a security hole).
FWIW, I do all my develop
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Why isn't it possible to move 1.0-2
> after one week even though 1.0-3 exists in unstable?
Hello!
Because 1.0-2 was not tested properly. After 1.0-3 is released nobody
uses 1.0-2 anymore, bugs in 1.0-2 but not in 1.0-3 won't be found.
Possible sc
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:51:12PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Developers are supposed to know what they're doing with the urgency field.
> It can be used to decrease the quarantine time of a particular upload (and
> all subsequent ones until the package manages to get installed in
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 02:49:36PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Let's say it takes one week for a package to make it from unstable to
> testing. So what happens if package foo_1.0-1.deb is in testing and
> foo_1.0-2.deb is uploaded and then after five days foo_1.0-3.deb is uploaded
> to unstable.
On Mon, 07 May 2001, Michael Meskes wrote:
> to unstable. What happens if no grave bug exists againts foo? Is 1.0-2 moved
> to testing after 7 days, or is 1.0-3 moved or do the seven days start anew
The quarantine time is restarted every upload.
> If it is also true with no grave bug, we should e
20 matches
Mail list logo
