On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 03:57:16PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> This is a different issue. Besides, you won't solve it by
> >> gettint people to do different uploads since they can compile
> >> both on stable (some developers
> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is a different issue. Besides, you won't solve it by
>> gettint people to do different uploads since they can compile
>> both on stable (some developers only run stable machines
>> immediately after a release). What y
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 03:09:30AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:42:57PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Well my point is that disallowing "stable unstable" doesn't solve those
> > problems for most packages, as "stable unstable" uploads are rare to start
> > with. And f
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:42:57PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:51:06PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:42:16AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > > Are you saying that packages compiled against old libc6-dev packages are
> > > not guarranteed to work
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:42:57PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Well my point is that disallowing "stable unstable" doesn't solve those
> problems for most packages, as "stable unstable" uploads are rare to start
> with. And for packages which don't have these problems, this incurs
> significant ove
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:51:06PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:42:16AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that packages compiled against old libc6-dev packages are
> > not guarranteed to work with a new libc6? Well, better tell that to all
> > the application v
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:06:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> It's my opinion that same version uploads to stable/unstable are harful
> to archive and distribution integrity.
There is a deep reason why this makes sense, but I think you didn't mention
it explicitely. The reasons you mentioned are
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:11:43AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> If there is need of a technical reason here, we need a technical
> reason to forbid legitimate uploads, which is (one of the things) your
> proposal would do.
>
What is a legitimate reason for uploading to stable/unstable other t
Ben Collins wrote:
> So, if those objecters will adress my counter-objection to them, I will
> concede the objection.
If you think my objection is gratuitous, I think your proposal is
gratuitous too. I'm sorry but objections are not "conceded" by people
doing policy proposals. They just happen as
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 64298
Bug#64298: xviddetect: wacky messages with no /proc
Bug is already closed, cannot re-close.
> reopen 64298 !
Bug#64298: xviddetect: wacky messages with no /proc
Bug reopened, originator set to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess).
> close 64308
B
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:42:16AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:35:58PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > > > Testing libc6 backward compatibility is not the purpose of
> > > > stable/unstable uploads. That is something that needs to be tested
> > >
> > > But it is a side
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:35:58PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > > Testing libc6 backward compatibility is not the purpose of
> > > stable/unstable uploads. That is something that needs to be tested
> >
> > But it is a side effect for packages depending on libc6.
>
> And side affects are often
Here's an (IMHO) better way of solving the old libraries problem:
1. If a package depends on anything in section oldlib in a distribution,
it isn't allowed in to that distribution.
2. Disallow uploads to "stable unstable" that can't go into both of them.
Of course, you need to override this ch
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 03:09:54PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 21-Mar-01, 11:45 (CST), Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > @@ -1434,15 +1434,23 @@
> >
> >
> >
> > - frozen
> > + testing
>^^^
>
> But la
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:22:40AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:10:20PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Yes it does help. By allowing stable/unstable uploads, we implicitly
> > allow maintainers to do something potentially harmful and with almost
> > zero technical gain.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:10:20PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Yes it does help. By allowing stable/unstable uploads, we implicitly
> allow maintainers to do something potentially harmful and with almost
> zero technical gain. By disallowing it, we raise awareness that it is
> most commonly not
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 07:45:27AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As for the first. Multi distributions occur so infrequently that it
> > should not be a problem to do this. Most of the time a package is
> > already diverged between stable and unstable, so
On 21-Mar-01, 11:45 (CST), Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -1434,15 +1434,23 @@
>
>
>
> - frozen
> + testing
^^^
But later wrote:
> + is a time constraint before migration. Note
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 07:31:18AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:37:56AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Remember that the majority of uploads to stable are done by the security
> > team and the buildd's. I don't think this is a lot of effort for the
> > maintainers, since it
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 03:58:44PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 07:31:18AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > And as I said in my previous message, for libraries with the soname
> > (like glibc), you do want to test it against old -dev packages to ensure
> > binary compatibility.
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for the first. Multi distributions occur so infrequently that it
> should not be a problem to do this. Most of the time a package is
> already diverged between stable and unstable, so two uploads are still
> required in that case for security fixes. Enfo
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:37:56AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Remember that the majority of uploads to stable are done by the security
> team and the buildd's. I don't think this is a lot of effort for the
> maintainers, since it isn't done often enough to be cumbersome, like it
> would have been
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:45:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> diff -urN debian-policy-3.5.2.0.orig/policy.sgml
> debian-policy-3.5.2.0/policy.sgml
[snip]
Seconded.
--
G. Branden Robinson |Software engineering: that part of
Debian GNU/Linux|computer science w
The only objections I have seen are simplified by "it is too difficult
to for that one maintainers" and "it should be possible to do this for
packages that do not break".
As for the first. Multi distributions occur so infrequently that it
should not be a problem to do this. Most of the time a pack
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:19:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:06:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Summary:
> > History:
> > Technical reasoning:
> > Issues:
> > Caveats:
>
> But nowhere did you have the actual text of a policy change. This is
> needed.
>
> Plea
Remember that the majority of uploads to stable are done by the security
team and the buildd's. I don't think this is a lot of effort for the
maintainers, since it isn't done often enough to be cumbersome, like it
would have been for "frozen unstable" uploads.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 07:38:08PM +1
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
>
> Summary:
>
> Policy should disallow uploads for multiple distributions. Specifically
> this means same version uploads to "stable unstable".
Summary: I object.
> [...]
> Technical reasoning:
>
> 1) Building for "stable unstable
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Running a buildd, I have the problem of builds that come in for stable
> and unstable. Currently this means the buildd performs the compile on
> stable, and either uploads to "stable unstable", or as it were
Is there a reason why this option won't work?
>
28 matches
Mail list logo
