Lucid auto-syncing with Debian testing

Steve Langasek steve.langasek at
Mon Nov 2 10:11:49 GMT 2009

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 11:35:43PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think doko's concerns about blockage due to transition issues  from 
> Unstable to Testing are a reasonable consideration.  I think syncing from 
> Debian Unstable is fine.  IMO, most of our recent toolchain related 
> problems (Python 2.6 in Jaunty and GCC 4.4 in Karmic) were for being newer 
> than Debian Unstable.

Do you think the clarification that Ubuntu developers should consider
themselves at liberty to request syncs from unstable for anything they think
is appropriate addresses this issue?

> I wouldn't worry about Lucid +1.  LTS +1 releases are notoriously crackful. 
>  A few extra merges won't affect that significantly.


> I'm personally quite dissappointed this decision was taken without 
> significant community input.  IIRC, this is not what we discussed at the 
> LTS/Debian planning session at the last UDS.

This was certainly unintentional; my own recollection was that "sync from
testing" was discussed at UDS and that it was not met with any major
objections.  If I've misremembered and inadvertently kept the community out
of the loop as a result, I apologize.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                          
slangasek at                                     vorlon at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : 

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list