reassign 706647 buildd.debian.org thanks On Thu, 2 May 2013, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: buildd.debian.org,base-files > Severity: important > > In #706480, Adam Barret did point out a missing binary package in openjdk-7 on > powerpc, which I can track down to a rather oldish version of base-files used > on > the parry buildd, which lists the release code name still as sid, not wheezy. > > There are two issues I would like to see addressed: > > - please keep the packages of a buildd chroot (debootstrap --variant=buildd) > current. If that's not possible, please set up a list of packages which > should always be current and update these on a regular basis (like > base-files). This is the buildd part, nothing to object. > - The base-files packages was updated only very late during the release > freeze. Please could you consider updating this package like all packages > at freeze time for upcoming releases? > > During freezes, is there a way to have testing identified as as squeeze, > and > unstable as sid? Currently there is no way to make a differentiation > between > wheezy and sid. And this is the base-files part, which I do not consider it to be a bug for the reasons explained in the base-files FAQ (aka README). I'll try to reword those reasons here: During the release cycle, testing and unstable are two sides of the same coin. The preferred method of making an upload intended for testing during the freeze is to do so via unstable. Therefore trying to differentiate between testing and unstable before testing becomes stable is usually wrong, and that's the reason I delay the "stable" release of base-files as much as I can. The README also explains that trying to guess which distribution are you running based solely on /etc/debian_version is not going to work. As a result, if you have a procedure which uses /etc/debian_version, either directly or indirectly, then your procedure is fundamentally wrong and you should really consider changing your procedure. The other thing you said is that base-files was updated too late during the release freeze. This is not really true if we compare with other release cycles. People usually don't want to see "Debian 7.0" (or any other stable version number) when they are running testing, even if it's frozen, so my preferred time to make the "stable" release of base-files is usually "before debian-installer people make their first Release Candidate", which is also what I tried this time. In this case, the "stable" release of base-files was made on 12 Dec 2012 and Debian Installer RC1 was released on 17 Feb 2013. That's two months, which is a lot more than previous release cycles. To summarize: * buildds should be updated: of course. * base-files should help you to differentiate between testing and unstable: No, that's wrong almost by definition. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
