Hi, I read developers-reference but what I am seeing is a bit dirrefent.
Read on.... On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:26:01PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:36:30PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > stable-proposed-updates is defined as: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/pkgs.html#upload-stable > > A) a truly critical functionality problem > > B) the package becomes uninstallable > > C) a released architecture lacks the package > > > > stable-updates is defined as: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile-announce/2011/msg00000.html > > D) The update is urgent and not of a security nature. Security updates > > will continue to be pushed through the security archive. Examples > > include packages broken by the flow of time (c.f. spamassassin and > > the year 2010 problem) and fixes for bugs introduced by point > > releases. > > E) The package in question is a data package and the data must be updated > > in a timely manner (e.g. tzdata). > > F) Fixes to leaf packages that were broken by external changes (e.g. > > video downloading tools and tor). > > G) Packages that need to be current to be useful (e.g. clamav). > > > > Here, I think A includes (D + E + G) in some way. F is relaxing of A > > qualification rule for leaf packages. Are we removing A from > > stable-proposed-updates? Basically stable-updates seems to be A with > > relaxed qualification to be "critical functionality problem" but with > > limitted applicable package types? > > every package will enter stable-proposed-updates first. Then, if it warrants > an update outside of the normal point release cycle (and those are rare) it > gets copied to squeeze-updates for public consumption. Well, I just uploaded 2.46 to "stable" for debian-reference. This seems to be gone into stable-updates per some information I got as mail from Debian FTP Masters as: | Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:04:20 +0000 | From: Debian FTP Masters <[email protected]> | To: Osamu Aoki <[email protected]> | Subject: debian-reference_2.46_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into proposed-updates | | Notes: | Mapping stable to proposed-updates. | | Accepted: | debian-reference-common_2.46_all.deb | to main/d/debian-reference/debian-reference-common_2.46_all.deb | .... I also see Debian web pages: stable-updates in http://qa.debian.org/[email protected] (mouse over 2.46 on debian-reference line gives stable-updates) stable-proposed-updates in http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/debian-reference.html (left side list s-p-u as 2.46) This is confusing. > Transitively the rules for stable-proposed-updates got a bit more relaxed > to fix up packages and keep them useful in stable if they're broken by > outside influences not under our control.[*] Previously those were updated > through volatile. Now they'll be fixed in stable instead if the fixes > are self-contained and unlikely to cause any breakage in other packages. > (Thus the reference to leaf packages.) > > I hope that clears it up. This part is OK. Question is what path package goes through and delay for each step. Are stable-updates and stable-proposed-updates the same thing with different alias? If I trust: http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/pkgs.html#upload-stable "stable upload" -> "proposed-updates-new queue" -> "stable-proposed-updates" -> (at next point release) stable But what has happened is "stable upload" -> "??? queue" -> "stable-updates" -> (I expect at next point release) stable How do ypu explain this differences? > [*] Release files are indeed under "our" control, so checksum fixes > wouldn't qualify per se (but there might be reasons to do them anyway). > Protocol changes in proprietary messengers that require an update would > qualify, though. I assume you are talking checksum format change of Release files which caused some archive tools to be broken. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
