[arch-general] [testing] protocol - {WAS: [arch-dev-public] WARNING - glibc-2.13-2}
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 20:10 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
I have removed the glibc-2.13-2 package until a fix is committed to upstream git. All users should downgrade to the version in [core].
Allan
While I understand why Allan did this, shouldn't this be unnecessary for the [testing] repo? Those who use it know what to do, after all....
On 06/02/11 20:16, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 20:10 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
I have removed the glibc-2.13-2 package until a fix is committed to upstream git. All users should downgrade to the version in [core].
Allan
While I understand why Allan did this, shouldn't this be unnecessary for the [testing] repo? Those who use it know what to do, after all....
Probably. And if the breakage was more minor, I would have left it there (e.g. what has been done with the make package). But given I still do not 100% understand the bug and the there is no real schedule for an upstream fix, I thought it best to just make everybody's life easier and remove the package for the time being. Allan
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 20:37 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 06/02/11 20:16, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 20:10 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
I have removed the glibc-2.13-2 package until a fix is committed to upstream git. All users should downgrade to the version in [core].
Allan
While I understand why Allan did this, shouldn't this be unnecessary for the [testing] repo? Those who use it know what to do, after all....
Probably. And if the breakage was more minor, I would have left it there (e.g. what has been done with the make package). But given I still do not 100% understand the bug and the there is no real schedule for an upstream fix, I thought it best to just make everybody's life easier and remove the package for the time being.
Allan
Ah. I guess the fact that its not really an upstream release but a bunch of backported stuff also has an effect?
On 06/02/11 20:54, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 20:37 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 06/02/11 20:16, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 20:10 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
I have removed the glibc-2.13-2 package until a fix is committed to upstream git. All users should downgrade to the version in [core].
Allan
While I understand why Allan did this, shouldn't this be unnecessary for the [testing] repo? Those who use it know what to do, after all....
Probably. And if the breakage was more minor, I would have left it there (e.g. what has been done with the make package). But given I still do not 100% understand the bug and the there is no real schedule for an upstream fix, I thought it best to just make everybody's life easier and remove the package for the time being.
Allan
Ah. I guess the fact that its not really an upstream release but a bunch of backported stuff also has an effect?
Not really. Most of the toolchain is built from snapshots from the upstream release branches rather than actual releases. Normally that results in less breakages! :P
2011/2/6 Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
On 06/02/11 20:16, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 20:10 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
I have removed the glibc-2.13-2 package until a fix is committed to upstream git. All users should downgrade to the version in [core].
Allan
While I understand why Allan did this, shouldn't this be unnecessary for the [testing] repo? Those who use it know what to do, after all....
Probably. And if the breakage was more minor, I would have left it there (e.g. what has been done with the make package). But given I still do not 100% understand the bug and the there is no real schedule for an upstream fix, I thought it best to just make everybody's life easier and remove the package for the time being.
Why not just remove the patch increment pkgrel and let pacman -Su do the rest? -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net
On 07/02/11 20:26, Seblu wrote:
2011/2/6 Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org>:
On 06/02/11 20:16, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 20:10 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
I have removed the glibc-2.13-2 package until a fix is committed to upstream git. All users should downgrade to the version in [core].
Allan
While I understand why Allan did this, shouldn't this be unnecessary for the [testing] repo? Those who use it know what to do, after all....
Probably. And if the breakage was more minor, I would have left it there (e.g. what has been done with the make package). But given I still do not 100% understand the bug and the there is no real schedule for an upstream fix, I thought it best to just make everybody's life easier and remove the package for the time being.
Why not just remove the patch increment pkgrel and let pacman -Su do the rest?
Why? User of [testing] should see the message on arch-dev-public and be competent enough to downgrade.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 07/02/11 20:26, Seblu wrote:
2011/2/6 Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org>:
On 06/02/11 20:16, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 20:10 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
I have removed the glibc-2.13-2 package until a fix is committed to upstream git. All users should downgrade to the version in [core].
Allan
While I understand why Allan did this, shouldn't this be unnecessary for the [testing] repo? Those who use it know what to do, after all....
Probably. And if the breakage was more minor, I would have left it there (e.g. what has been done with the make package). But given I still do not 100% understand the bug and the there is no real schedule for an upstream fix, I thought it best to just make everybody's life easier and remove the package for the time being.
Why not just remove the patch increment pkgrel and let pacman -Su do the rest?
Why? User of [testing] should see the message on arch-dev-public and be competent enough to downgrade. Why loop. Hum. I wondered what was the best thing to do in this case and I would not have done it right the first time.
I naively pushed back an earlier packet with a new release version and report my error. Because, this allow every already updated users to smoothly upgrade without questioning himself about my regression. But causing all others users to upgrade to same package at next upgrade. This is transparent for everybody, save dev focusing, and save some time. So, I was wondering if I ignore some rules or if I do not see something that we should not do this. -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net
Am 06.02.2011 11:16, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 20:10 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
I have removed the glibc-2.13-2 package until a fix is committed to upstream git. All users should downgrade to the version in [core].
Allan
While I understand why Allan did this, shouldn't this be unnecessary for the [testing] repo? Those who use it know what to do, after all....
There's no point in leaving a broken package in the repository, is there?
participants (4)
-
Allan McRae
-
Ng Oon-Ee
-
Seblu
-
Thomas Bächler