Hi, On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 17:55 +0000, Michael Tautschnig wrote: > > > Minimal testing of the squeeze-specific build has been performed; the same > > > version, although built for lenny-volatile, is being "tested" in > > > production environments. I'm now uploading to squeeze-updates. > > > > Unfortunately, the upload got rejected by dak. > > > > Please could you re-upload using "stable" as the distribution. > > "squeeze-updates" is not intended as a direct upload target. > > > > Fixed and re-uploading just now.
Thanks. I've marked it for acceptance in to proposed-updates during the next dinstall; we'll see how quickly the majority of the builds come in and promote it to squeeze-updates later. > Is that use of distribution names documented > anywhere? I had taken a look at tzdata, which indeed uses "stable", but The relevant section of the Developer's Reference - <URL:http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/pkgs.html#upload-stable> - implies that "stable" is correct. That section, together with basically all other documentation about updating stable, needs overhauling to match current practice and policy, but from that point-of-view it's correct. > according to [1] all these are equivalent and I found squeeze-updates to be > much > more descriptive, hence used that one. That's the theory; it doesn't quite work right now, as you discovered. (Although in this case it was due to the version constraints on squeeze-updates being different from those on proposed-updates currently). > Another related question: should one send a working draft of an update > announcement to somewhere? I'm used to doing that for volatile, but don't know > about the procedures for stable-updates. Feel free to ping it in my direction if you'd like. > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/03/msg00007.html Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
