On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 07:50:36AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 07:24:47AM +0100, Michael Hanke wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 05:17:11PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> writes:
> > > > I am unhappy that unstable gets frozen for such a long time, but I
> > > > understand that with the current setup (e.g. unstable, testing, ..),
> > > > there is probably no other way.
> > > I'm unhappy about it too, but I don't understand it. Where can I find
> > > an explanation for the necessity of freezing ‘unstable’ when preparing
> > > to release ‘testing’?
> > I'd be also very interested about this information -- which seems to be
> > common sense -- but I cannot see the necessity as well.
> It's not necessary to freeze unstable when preparing to release testing;
> this is a significant reason why testing exists as a separate suite.
> So in fact, unstable is *not* frozen.  It is recommended to treat unstable
> as frozen for libraries, because uploads of such central packages to
> unstable makes it more onerous to get fixes to other packages depending on
> those libraries into testing via the normal route; but I'm of the opinion
> that the pendulum has swung too far the other direction for lenny, with
> maintainers uploading leaf packages to experimental instead of to unstable
> for freeze reasons, when the probability of an upload to unstable causing
> more work for the lenny release is infinitesimal.

Thanks a lot for your clarifications.

> (I understand that the current discussion is about a case of a package with
> a lot of reverse-dependencies; so I don't disagree with the conclusion to
> avoid an upload to unstable for now.)

Wrt to lenny, we are talking about two reverse dependent packages.


GPG key:  1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke
ICQ: 48230050

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Reply via email to