On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:25:49 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
>> for the rest, I'd think that there is a very good chance that the
>> respective maintainers are going to fix them before they turn out to
>> be actual blockers of the transition. If they do, let's remove them
>> temporarily from testing.
>>
>> I mean, uploading libav10 to unstable will require many additional
>> sourceful uploads of package versions that are currently in
>> experimental, which will take some time by itself. I'd suggest let's
>> start with that.
>>
> So the fact that it'll require sourceful uploads of lots of packages
> with many different maintainers is actually a big part of what makes
> this painful for us. The easiest transitions are the ones where a
> rebuild is all that's necessary, and fewer people need to be involved to
> upload things at more or less the same time.
I see. Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to prepare all of libav's
reverse dependencies in this way, which is why I need I'm asking for
assistance. I'm sorry to cause this amount of pain to you, but I don't
see how to do better here.
> Would a timeline like this work for you:
> - T: upload libav to unstable
> - T+0: upgrade all FTBFS bugs to serious severity, ask maintainers to
> move the updated packages from experimental to sid
> - T+1 day (approximately): libav is built on all archs in sid
> - T+1 week: libav maintainers (+ anyone else interested) start NMUing
> the remaining packages (without delay)
> - T+2 weeks (hopefully): everything is rebuilt and can move to testing
> ?
That would be beautiful. From my side, I would appreciate it very much
if we could make T==today.
> For reference last time took 2 months.
I'll be doing my best to make it happen faster this time.
--
regards,
Reinhard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
