Taper off Hoary, prepare Breezy...

[John Dong]

oh, yeah, does it look like Breezy's sources.list will contain Backports 
entries commented out? I really wanted to see this :-/

On 9/9/05, John Dong <john.dong at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/9/05, Martin Meredith <martin at sourceguru.net> wrote:
> > 
> > I completely agree with what Johnsays, and according to what Matt said
> > when I briefly spoke to him... Breezy backports form Breezy +1
> > infrastructure should be available around same time as breezy +1 
> > uploads..
> 
> 
> Ok, excellent to know. 
> 
> With the point of breezy backports though - I'd like to see it go
> > official only, because having 2 different places for backports is 
> > confusing, and time consuming... Obviously, there will still be
> > breezy-extras on the "unofficial" servers (which - top be quite honest,
> > I probbaly wouldn't be able to cope without), but - I'd like to see it 
> > all in one place, not all over the place...
> 
> 
> Naturally, breezy-extras will start on Breezy's release date, and will be 
> hosted on the old Backports server.
> 
> In addition, Breezy Backports Staging will also have to be hosted there, 
> unless the official infrastructure for binary copies gets put into place. I 
> think I've already established the need for a live testing APT tree in 
> previous e-mails and meeting(s).
> 
> Also, I'd like to see (even though it's going to be hard) hoary
> > backports continue... as, as we know, some people are still on warty, 
> > and while they may not be many, it's nice to let them have updates too
> > ... same goes for hoary :D
> 
> 
> I'd love to see that, too, but our current infrastructure has issues with 
> that. Currently, we use ~hoary1 and ~breezy1 for Backports package names. 
> This means that package 'foo-1.0-6ubuntu6~hoary1' actually registers as 
> NEWER than 'foo-1.0-6ubuntu6~breezy1' because H comes after B. The old 
> 4.10/5.04/5.10 trailers don't suffer from this problem though :). Some 
> packages will certainly stay unchanged for that period of time, which is 
> unfortunate.... I'd hate to have to force an upstream xubuntuy bump, but 
> that may be necessary if we want to do parallel backporting for different 
> releases.
> 
> The other solution would be to switch back to numeric version trailers.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways... those are my thoughts... :D
> > 
> > John Dong wrote:
> > > We're about a month (a bit more) away from Breezy's release, which is 
> > > approximately when I stopped Warty Backports to concentrate on
> > > infrastructure changes (and also channel some enthusiasts to beta
> > > testing). I'm thinking we should do the same about now. Virtually
> > > everything important in Hoary has been backported and is fairly 
> > up-to-date.
> > >
> > >
> > > While we're on the subject of infrastructure, I think official 
> > Backports
> > > is working out very well. Thanks, James & others for building the 
> > > packages for us, and thanks, Martin for stepping up to the plate for
> > > communications & relations. With my busy schedule, I couldn't do it
> > > without you guys! The only thing I'd like to bring some attention to 
> > is 
> > > a "staging" area...
> > >
> > >
> > > Matt, you once alluded (at the end of the Backports meeting) to plans
> > > for implementing binary copies, the equivalent of our -staging tree.
> > > Does that appear like it'd happen by the end of October? That'd be 
> > great 
> > > to have, since we don't have the resources to build packages for all
> > > architectures for testing. We've seen cases (nvu is a good example)
> > > where a package works fine on one architecture but crashes on another. 
> > 
> > > Without a testing repository, it's difficult to find these things out
> > > before they contaminate our stable tree.
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, to developers (forward to the appropriate contact): Can we get
> > > breezy-backports lines in Breezy's default sources.list, only 
> > commented
> > > out with a disclaimer (sort of like how Universe is there)? That way,
> > > users can simply check a checkbox to activate Backports instead of 
> > using 
> > > text editors and cut & pasting long URL's.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Other than that, I think Backports is top-notch now. Together, we've
> > > made a great distribution even better by offering high-quality version 
> > 
> > > updates with minimal stability problems.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > ubuntu-backports mailing list
> > ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com
> > http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/attachments/20050909/bb9ba80d/attachment-0001.htm