asterisk 1.6.1.0~dfsg-1 binary packages?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

[replying to list - switch to private mail was my fault, sorry!]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 02:48:47PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
>Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> 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).
>No, it's about preparing for the version that's going to release Debian 
>with and finding the potential bugs that will make that version 
>unsuitable. Or do you think that Debian will release e.g. with GNOME 
>2.26.0?
>
>I wouldn't upload e.g. a trunk snapshot. But in this case, -beta for 
>Asterisk means "no new major features, bug fixes only", which IMHO is 
>suitable for unstable.

We clearly disagree about the purpose of Debian unstable.  Let's just 
leave it at that for now.


>> 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.
>Why should I tag with a dummy RC bug?

Because it is wrong to depend on release cycles and only be careful 
close to a release.  That's like telling your kids "it is ok to play on 
train tracks when there are no trains in sight" instead of the more sane 
"never ever play on train tracks!".

But whatever - we disagree, and I won't waste more of our time on this.


>If there are RC bugs (and in this case, there are) they will filled by 
>users. If there are RC bugs that are known to us before we upload, then 
>we wait until we fix them and *then* upload.

...which is different from my point.  Just for the record.


>In any case, you're welcome to actively join us on IRC (or discuss stuff
>here as they happen) regarding asterisk's maintainance.
>Input is welcome, but taking part in the decision when it happens is
>even more welcome. Especially since these days I'm getting more and more
>busy and struggling with maintaining my packages properly.

Thanks.  I am however up to my neck in packages already (involved in 
close to 100 packages atm), and also I am hesitant working with Asterisk 
as the packaging style somewhat differ from my preferred one (git+cdbs).

I apologize if these mails was seen as an attack. That was certainly not 
the intention.  I am generally happy with quality of the asterisk 
package (I use it myself in production environments) and do not know the 
details of current state of the packaging - just wanted to emphasize 
this general point of (IMHO) wrong use of Debian unstable.


  - 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/20090828/4f40c6c5/attachment.pgp>