[Fwd: Re: Stable Release Updates policy]

Reinhard Tartler siretart at tauware.de
Tue Oct 31 13:43:24 GMT 2006

Hobbsee <hobbsee at kubuntu.org> writes:

> 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?

I think even FTBFS fixes should be carefully reviewed. Imagine the case
that we have working binary packages in the archive. Later, an updated
package was ACCEPTED into the archive (either by uploading or syncing
From debian). The new version now FTBFS. If we fix the FTBFS, we have
other binary packges in the archive. These other packages may of course
cause problems in these cases:

 * package is a library used by other packages
 * package is used as command by other package
 * package is a build-dependency of other packages

Maybe there are other cases I missed here. I agree that we could use
other rules for SRU-FTBFS fixes. But even they should be reviewed with
care. They deserve another kind of report, though.

PS: Happy birthday! ;)
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20061031/babdacc1/attachment.pgp 

More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list