Hi Thijs Le Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 03:11:04PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit : > On Tue, January 27, 2009 14:55, Charles Plessy wrote: > > I was thinking that changes like the one I made would be accepted until > > "Deep freeze", since this is the only planned change of unblock policy > > that was announced: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/12/msg00006.html > > Perhaps you misunderstood what the "regular freeze" means. It is the > stated policy of the release team that only release critical & important > bugfixes, release goals, translation and documentation updates qualify for > a freeze exception under the regular freeze. The deep freeze tightens this > list more. Hence, this change has in principle already not been acceptable > for freeze exceptions since months, although of course in individual cases > the release managers could have decided that they would allow that case > in. > > To me it's crystal clear that changes to something as fundamental as the > package build system without a concrete bug to address, are not > appropriate in the end of a release cycle; rather, something to be done at > the beginning. > > As I understand it the best gain this change in the debhelper > compatibility level at this point could bring us, is that the package > builds just as well as with the existing level. So why did you do that now > instead of after the freeze?
I did this on the simple assumption that what was good before would be good later until the next deadline, which is D-I RC2, as in the previous updates I made nobody told me anything about this kind of issue. Also, I did not expect this issue to be other than cosmetic since, as I showed in my previous mail, it changes nothing to the binary packages. Hope that explains, and have a nice day, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
