On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 09:15:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:57:14AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:10:00AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote: > > > As you know, the Debian GNOME team has been working on packaging > > > GNOME 2.6 during the last weeks. While many of us didn't count on having > > > them ready to opt for their inclussion in Sarge when we started, the > > > situation has changed now that packages are judged to be at least > > > unstable quality. > > At the moment, afaics, packages have only been uploaded to experimental > for i386 and powerpc. Please make sure they're building on all > architectures before even considering a major change like this.
Would be much easier if experimental was autobuilt. > Second, the quality level you need to be thinking about for uploading > to unstable isn't "unstable quality", it's "release quality". Are these > packages suitable to form a basis for other developers' work? Are they > reliable for everyday use? Have they been run through any automated > test suites we have available (at a minimum building them in a > pbuilder/autobuild environment) and are they reliably passing? If not, > they're not release quality, so they're not "unstable" quality. Well, what about using testing-proposed-update for 2.4 bugfix stuff ? Mmm, won't do, because packages are built against sid. Friendly, Sven Luther
