Niels Breet wrote:
> I can remove these packages through the packages interface, so that after
> the cleanup you can proceed with promotion.
>
> Do you want me to do that?
That would be great Niels! As I said everything >= 0.5.6. Also, if
possible, please do the same for the Chinook and Diablo r
On Tue, October 13, 2009 23:19, Cornelius Hald wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 22:38 +0200, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>
>> I strongly second Graham's point of view on this. Changing anything in
>> the build system has a ripple effect on all packages and we can't afford
>> a complete set of repository r
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 22:38 +0200, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
> I strongly second Graham's point of view on this. Changing anything in
> the build system has a ripple effect on all packages and we can't
> afford a complete set of repository rebuilds at this point in time.
> Hopefully conforming t
On Oct 13, 2009, at 15:20, Graham Cobb wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 13:46:25 Cornelius Hald wrote:
>> Sorry to be so persistent, but I still don´t understand why I should
>> have two packages.
>
> You are probably right that the root cause of the problem is that we
> are using
> extras-d
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 15:09 +0200, Tim Teulings wrote:
> All well thoughtout, but one problem: If you later on find a bug in 0.5.x
> and you will upload 0.5.y (where y>x) to get that fix into testing, at
> least in extras-devel nobody will be able to download it, because the
> application manager w
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 13:46:25 Cornelius Hald wrote:
> Sorry to be so persistent, but I still don´t understand why I should
> have two packages.
You are probably right that the root cause of the problem is that we are using
extras-devel for two different purposes: it is a test area for very
Hello!
> Exactly. If I upload e.g. 0.5.6 (stable) to extras-devel where there is
> already 0.6.0-alpha9 (unstable) the users still will get the unstable
> version which is exactly what I want. In fact I don´t need to have the
> stable version in extras-devel at all, but I have to put it there firs
ext Cornelius Hald writes:
> I will go that way if it´s the way to go, but I would like to understand
> why my way is wrong. I think it makes more sense to have only one
> package and to leave the definition on whether it is stable or not to
> the repository which it is in.
I don't think ther
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 13:21:25 Tim Teulings wrote:
> I would suggest to give "next stable version but currenttly still buggy" a
> special new package name like myapp-unstable or myapp6 (where 5 is the
> current version) (and keep this version in extras-devel). This was already
> suggested and
Tim Teulings wrote:
> People do updates with the application manager on extras-devel. If there is
> a package with multiple version in the repository, application manager will
> only show and allow update to the packages with the highest version number.
> A repository togetehr with the application
Graham Cobb wrote:
> I think that the best way to support two ongoing streams (say, a stable
> stream
> and a testing stream) is to give them two different package names. This is
> the way debian handles things like kde3 and kde4 or the various versions of
> gcj. This is particularly easy in
Hallo!
> Thanks Graham, I guess I´ll have to do it that way then. Only I still
> don´t really understand why. I mean, why is it not ok to just upload a
> package with a lower version number to extras-devel? I could then
> promote the stable one into extras-testing and the unstable one could
>
On Monday 12 October 2009 20:27:45 Cornelius Hald wrote:
> Now I have an update to the stable version with the version number
> 0.5.6. The extras autobuilder rejects this package because there is
> already a package with a higher version number in extras-devel.
I think that the best way to support
13 matches
Mail list logo
