On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 04:10:56PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>...
> > * it isn't consistent in all respects; e.g. although the package
> > dependencies might have been fulfilled, it contained for some time a
> > strange mixture of GNOME 1 and GNOME 2
>
> I'm pretty sure that was because of hi
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:20:20AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> libfoo version 2-1 isn't allowed to enter testing since this would make
> myprog uninstallable in testing
>
> myprog 5-2 isn't allowed to enter testing since this would make myprog
> uninstallable in testing.
>
> These two packages n
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 07:53:47PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >...
> > > I haven't found it explicitely mentioned, but the logial version number
> > > for a binary NMU of version 1.0 would be 1.0-0.0.1
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 07:53:47PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> > I haven't found it explicitely mentioned, but the logial version number
> > for a binary NMU of version 1.0 would be 1.0-0.0.1 .
>
> A binary NMU implies you haven't changed th
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:18:18AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:59:54AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Nothing stops me from using Version 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.
> >
> > It's sure that this system of numeration only works
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:59:54AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Nothing stops me from using Version 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.
It's sure that this system of numeration only works for non-native
Debian packages. It's not clear at all how to distinguish a NMU or a
binary NMU on a native Debian pack
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 12:44:57AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> - pre/postinst/rm scripts that worked from release to release fail on
> the version jump in testing
Nice catch. This even points to a flaw in the rule that only wants
the upgrade to work fine from the latest stable, and fr
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 12:44:57AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> - Foo depends on Bar and new version of Foo entering testing breaks
> Bar
I guess you mean "new version of Bar breaks Foo" ?
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-rel
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 05:13:24PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Independent of your suggestions:
> > It's never a good idea to use a version number namespace that is already
> > occupied for something different.
>
> OK, good point.
>
> So maybe pre-tes
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:18:18AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:59:54AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Nothing stops me from using Version 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.
>
> It's sure that this system of numeration only works for non-native
> Debian packages. It's not clear
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 04:42:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > Why does testing get out of a releasable state?
> > o RC bugs are found after entering testing
> > what else?
>
> - Maintainers sometime miss versionned deps
> - Build-deps are ignored by t
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:32:38AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> >...
> > > Binary NMU for unstable:
> > > Version: 1.0-2.0.1
> > >
> > > Your suggested pre-tesing package:
> > > Version: 1.0-2.0.1
> > >
> > >
> > > IOW:
> > > There ar
On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 05:13:24PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Independent of your suggestions:
> It's never a good idea to use a version number namespace that is already
> occupied for something different.
OK, good point.
If we were to use a different component of the Debian revision for
pre-te
Hi Adrian!
You wrote:
> libfoo version 2-1 isn't allowed to enter testing since this would make
> myprog uninstallable in testing
>
> myprog 5-2 isn't allowed to enter testing since this would make myprog
> uninstallable in testing.
>
> These two packages need to go into testing at the same ti
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:12:10AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> KDE 3 needed a long time until it was hinted into testing.
Ahh, so why did it even needed to be hinted at all?
How much more would testing stay in a releasable state if the manual hinting
wasn't used at all?
Why does testing get out
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 04:42:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Why does testing get out of a releasable state?
> o RC bugs are found after entering testing
> what else?
- Maintainers sometime miss versionned deps
- Build-deps are ignored by the testing scripts
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 05:13:24PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > There's often no arch-specific RC bugreport for problems that are fixed
> > > by binary NMUs.
> >
> > I'm precisely suggesting there should be. Maybe we miss a feature in
> > debbugs, to avoid mass-filing, where a given bug may r
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
>...
> > Binary NMU for unstable:
> > Version: 1.0-2.0.1
> >
> > Your suggested pre-tesing package:
> > Version: 1.0-2.0.1
> >
> >
> > IOW:
> > There are two different packages with the same version number.
>
> But:
>
> - if they com
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 11:16:40PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:32:38AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > >...
> > > > Binary NMU for unstable:
> > > > Version: 1.0-2.0.1
> > > >
> > > > Your suggested pre-tesin
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 04:42:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:12:10AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > KDE 3 needed a long time until it was hinted into testing.
>
> Ahh, so why did it even needed to be hinted at all?
>
> How much more would testing stay in a releasable st
+++ Martin-?ric Racine [03-11-20 13:36 +0200]:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Graham Wilson wrote:
> Why can't everything just be cross-compiled on a _really_ fast 64-bit host
> belonging to the Debian project?
Because it won't work. Only a relativly small (but admittedly increasing)
subset of packages w
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 01:58:59AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > But binary NMUs are not much different from what I'm proposing,
> > especially if we're rebuilding each of these packages, or do I miss
> > something ?
>
> Consider the following:
>
> unstable:
> Version: 1.0-2
>
> Binary NMU for u
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:34:53PM +0200, Martin-?ric Racine wrote:
> I'm glad to see that at least one person in the whole Debian project
> defends the interests of the end-user,
Guys, this is off-topic for -release. Release isn't a discussion list,
please move this to -devel.
Thanks,
aj
--
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 08:35:42AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
>...
> > > In that case, if we had libfoo0_1.0-1 in pre-testing, and
> > > libfoo0_1.0-2 in unstable, we'd end up with libfoo0_1.0-2.0.1 in
> > > pre-testing, and libfoo0_1.0-2.0.2 in unstable, whether the latter was
> > > rebuilt or just
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:36:37PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > I don't know if I agree with the idea of building against testing
> > (though I believe that is not exactly what you said).
>
> I indeed said exactly that: always build against wha
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:34:53PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > 1) experimental
> >
> > The hacker playground. Dodgy uploads allowed. No guarantees to anyone
> > on the sanity of anything there.
> >
> > 2) unstable
> >
> > * Whatever was tho
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:19:11PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> >...
> > That could be done either by a rebuild, or, less costly, by a simple
> > unpack/edit-changelog/repack.
>
> Repacking breaks with every
> Depends: somepackage (=
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:34:53PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> 1) experimental
>
> The hacker playground. Dodgy uploads allowed. No guarantees to anyone
> on the sanity of anything there.
>
> 2) unstable
>
> * Whatever was thoroughly tested by developpers in experimental and is
> cons
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:56:52AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> You still haven't commented on the overall idea of always building upon libs
> and
> other dependencies already in Testing, instead of building on, say, a glibc
> that
> is in unstable, preventing a few hundred of packages from
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:34:53PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > * In relation to this, Mozilla 1.3 (IMHO, the last rock-solid built
> > we've had on Debian) was good enough for Testing and should have been
> > allowed to trickle down, instead o
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:34:53PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>...
> One example of this is, while Gnome 2.2 has made it to testing, most
> GTK2/Gnome2 killer apps, like Evolution, are still stuck in Unstable.
> Why? Two reasons:
>
> 1) Ximian cranks out more releases than the Debian mai
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
>...
> That could be done either by a rebuild, or, less costly, by a simple
> unpack/edit-changelog/repack.
Repacking breaks with every
Depends: somepackage (= ${Source-Version})
> In that case, if we had libfoo0_1.0-1 in pre-testing,
Must say I agree on alot here, that something has to change with the state
of unstable/testing?
Unstable is to be unstable: why have experimental?
All packages make their way into unstable, after maintainer have done some
work on it.
Some point I wanna make:
-Unstable should be frozen on a
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 02:03:08PM +, Wookey wrote:
> Doing my builds on a testing machine, then uploading to
> unstable can mean I introduce packages compiled against the wrong library
> versions. Source-only uploads would solve this and I could do test-compiles
> on some debian machine.
Off
I like this idea of pre-testing. It would allow to cut down the versionned
dependencies caused by automatic detection and allow a quicker move to
testing.
The issue I see however is that a package rebuilded that way would go into
testing without being tested by anyone. What if a given package fai
I'm glad to see that at least one person in the whole Debian project
defends the interests of the end-user, by reminding everyone that the
end-user is the most important person, as stated in the Debian project
goals. Thanks Adrian!
This being said, back to the the proposed improvements:
So
+++ Yann Dirson [03-11-18 22:54 +0100]:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:29:29PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> But that last point raises another issue: does anyone really use
> testing ? Would anyone use pre-testing after all ?
I used testing for a couple of years on my laptop and non-critical machin
Adrian wrote:
> Your proposal wouldn't have been able to shorten the move of KDE 3 into
> testing by one single day.
Yes, my comment was misplaced wrt what you said, this problem still
has to be addressed. My proposal, however, is more targetted to
packages which would build with, say, KDE2, but
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:54:00PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:29:29PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > There are some good suggestions in your proposal, e.g. you suggest to
> > check whether the build dependencies are fulfilled. The lack of checking
> > for build dependen
Scripsit Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But that last point raises another issue: does anyone really use
> testing ? Would anyone use pre-testing after all ?
I think very many people use stable plus bits and pieces from
testing. I have two machines set up that way. Getting the bits and
pieces
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:29:29PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> There are some good suggestions in your proposal, e.g. you suggest to
> check whether the build dependencies are fulfilled. The lack of checking
> for build dependencies in the current testing scripts often leads to
> packages in tes
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 05:47:44PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Joey wrote:
> >Packages in unstable have dependencies in unstable which may not be
> >met in testing, hence they cannot simply be included in testing.
> >Unfortunately we need to take care of this.
>
> I've come up at least once with a
Joey wrote:
>Packages in unstable have dependencies in unstable which may not be
>met in testing, hence they cannot simply be included in testing.
>Unfortunately we need to take care of this.
I've come up at least once with a suggestion on how we could avoid this
problem and increase the throughpu
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:53:36PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > Today, it's only 17 days until the officially announced "aggressive goal"
> > for the release of Debian 3.1 [1]. That's a date many users know about,
> > but I don't
Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Now, I suggest: allow a way to add bug-fixes directly into testing,
> instead of having them go through unstable first. If there's a new (and
> very buggy) version in unstable, but there's an easy-to-fix bug in
> testing, why not allow developers to fix this bug withou
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:23:00 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> You need a freeze at one point (unstable or testing) to get a base
> where you can start to fix the remaining problems without new bugs
> from new upstream versions.
> The choices are:
> - freeze testing and start then to backport all the b
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Today, it's only 17 days until the officially announced "aggressive goal"
> for the release of Debian 3.1 [1]. That's a date many users know about,
> but I don't see any real progress towards Debian 3.1 during the last
> months.
I sup
Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> - testing, unstable or Debian 3.0 with backports aren't suitable for
>> production systems
>
> Of course it is, Debian 3.0 with a few _selected_ backports works
> nice, also on production systems.
Err, do you realize you'r
* Adrian Bunk wrote:
> - testing, unstable or Debian 3.0 with backports aren't suitable for
> production systems
Of course it is, Debian 3.0 with a few _selected_ backports works
nice, also on production systems.
--
- nobse
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> But this problem needs either be fixed in any way or Debian should
> officially announce that it's now a hackers-only distribution, since
> it's due to the lack of stable releases not usable for serious systems.
>
> _Why_ do these threads pop up without an
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> below are some subjective opservations and opinions regarding the
> progress towards Debian 3.1 .
This is off-topic for -release. Please restrict any replies to -devel or
private mail.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:48:04PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where
> > I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issues
> > or if you don't agr
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:01:07PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 17:42, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If a maintainer is MIA, his packages should be orphaned and he should
> > be kicked out of Debian as soon as possible.
>
> It would be better _not_ to make it a policy to kick a maint
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 12:34:27AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:42:26PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > For testing to work good, it's required to have unstable in a good
> > > state. Often new so-version
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:42:26PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > During the last months, the number of RC bugs of packages in unstable
> > was constant at 700 bugs including 500 RC bugs in packages that are in
> > testing [2].
>
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:42:26PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > For testing to work good, it's required to have unstable in a good
> > state. Often new so-versions of libraries enter unstable, and e.g. KDE
> > 3.2 might soon go into
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> During the last months, the number of RC bugs of packages in unstable
> was constant at 700 bugs including 500 RC bugs in packages that are in
> testing [2].
> Yes, there's the common argument "Don't talk, fix bugs.". Unfortunately
>
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where
> I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issues
> or if you don't agree with everything below.
Nice of you to vent steam onto the mailing
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> below are some subjective opservations and opinions regarding the
> progress towards Debian 3.1 .
>
> Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where
> I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issue
Moin Adrian!
Adrian Bunk schrieb am Saturday, den 15. November 2003:
> solved, the next one pups up. For testing to work good, it's required to
> have unstable in a good state. Often new so-versions of libraries enter
> unstable, and e.g. KDE 3.2 might soon go into unstable. If testing
> should be
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 17:42, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If a maintainer is MIA, his packages should be orphaned and he should
> be kicked out of Debian as soon as possible.
It would be better _not_ to make it a policy to kick a maintainer
out of Debian just because he or she is MIA. Faced with this
pro
61 matches
Mail list logo
