[Debian GNUstep maintainers] New GNUstep releases

[Yavor Doganov]

[ Quoting in full for the sake of the bug log. ]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:37:30AM +0200, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
>> So... what shall we do for squeeze?  The current situation is
>> really frustrating :-(.
>>
>> I think we should definitely try to release with the newest, not
>> only because they are labeled as "stable" -- there are lots of good
>> API additions and bugfixes that application developers are going to
>> rely upon.  What we have now (heck, we don't even *have* it, given
>> that gui/back is only in experimental) is already obsolete.

> I agree, we should go for the latest stable release, and your plan
> to test it before distributing it is good.

OK, I'll start working on it immediately after I fix the gnustep-base
FTBFS on powerpc and hurd-i386.  I'll try to get everything ready
within this week.

> I can help until end of May, then I'm kind of away for two months.

I hope we can complete the transition in May; the freeze is
approaching...  In any event, I can NMU if a sourceful upload with a
fix is necessary.

>> But we have to be careful not to make the situation worse, so I
>> suggest the following:
>>
>> Make 2.4.0: Upload to sid right away, no transition involved.
>>
>> Base 1.20.0: Upload to experimental (for now).  This would allow us
>> to test all packages and judge whether to go on with a 1.19->1.20
>> transition.  If we decide not to do so (for whatever reason), this
>> will not prevent an upload of gui/back to sid (base will remain in
>> experimental for a post-squeeze transition).
>>
>> GUI/Back 0.18.0: I'll prepare the packages once the new releases
>> are out, and after we upload -base/1.20.0, but will not upload at
>> all.  Instead, I'll put them in a public location so that we can
>> all test the whole GNUstep stack.  If we can manage to deal with
>> all breakages, we can then upload gui+back to experimental and
>> update the release.d.o bug with the new information (i.e. the
>> preparation for base 1.19->1.20 and gui 0.16->0.18 transitions).
>>
>> What do you think about the plan?  Does it sound good?

> Sounds good, I don't know if it's good to waste debian developer
> sponsor time for experimental uploads though. I'm very much behind
> with getting my packages updated because of lack of sponsor time.

Well, while I feel the pain too, we most definitely *cannot* upload
ABI-breaking releases to sid without the release team's approval, even
if we have to wait months for it.  Uncoordinated uploads can disrupt
the whole release process, and we certainly do not want to do that.