asterisk 1.6.1.0~dfsg-1 binary packages?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

[sent again, properly to the list this time]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 01:06:27PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
>Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> That doesn't mean of course that we'd like to upload crap to unstable.
>>
>> And not half-crap either.  We shouldn't upload known regressions from
>> earlier releases.
>>
>> Uploads to unstable should generally be treated as targeted next 
>> stable release of Debian.
>Agreed. What's "half-crap" about Asterisk 1.6.2.0-beta3?
>
>Squeeze will most probably release with Asterisk 1.6.2.x; the -beta
>releases serve exactly the purpose of unstable.
>
>There were no known severe bugs at the time of upload.

If the beta release is acceptable for next stable Debian release, then 
there is nothing half-crappy about that one.

If, on the other hand, that release was uploaded to unstable with the 
deliberate intend of replacing it with a "proper" one later, then it is 
half-crappy (i.e. not intended for production use even if not known to 
be really crappy).

It is a common misconception that Debian unstable is a storage for 
non-releasable code.  It is a storage place for releasable code that 
needs to be tested that they work not only alone but also together.

If you really really want to use Debian unstable for not-for-release 
code, then upload and immediately tag with a dummy RC bug.


Regards,

   - Jonas

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

   [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-voip-maintainers/attachments/20090828/58f0c8b7/attachment.pgp>