Hi, Am Dienstag 31 Oktober 2006 14:23 schrieb Hobbsee: > For FTBFS only bugs, with an eyeballable patch: > > Is it really necessary to go through with the 5 approvals, or 7 days, > whichever is longer? > > Clearly, we can test for buildability and installability - and even a > semi-working version is better than the version that fails to build, I > expect - perhaps have a smaller quorum to ack those requests?
imo yes, it should be treated like other SRU's, because you change a stable distribution. With FTBFS bugs the situation gets even a little bit more complicated: consider foo-1.1 built fine, foo-1.2 FTBFS'd and you propose foo-1.21. Then users of foo will probably have foo-1.1 installed (since no new binary version resulted from 1.2) which makes a different upgrade path than from foo-1.2. Different treatment could be considered for known bad packages though. > > Example debdiff - cinepaint (which needs uploading - changes are mostly > from debian) > > http://www.buntudot.org/people/~hobbsee/cinepaint.debdiff Got a different idea though: How about using this as a test-case for the proposed policy? Cheers, Stefan. -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
