[Pkg-zope-developers] Re: about the pkg-zope repositories

[Matthias Klose]

Andreas Tille writes:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> 
> >> I have to admit that I personally do not any testing in experimental.  This
> >> is way below my visible horizont in day-to-day work.  So you might facing
> >> the situation that you are the only tester of the experimental packages.
> >
> > Again, I think I'm lacking of experience. Should I do something to ask
> > for testing of those packages? I'm just asking myself if unstable would
> > have been a better place for wide testing, and your sentece give me no
> > sense for experimental repository. :)
> Lets see what other people on this list think.  Perhaps I'm a little bit
> to straight, but I doubt that you get many testers for packages in experimental.

Andreas, it depends on the attitude of the testers ;-) The Gnome team
did show, that it could get the whole Gnome 2.8 preparation done in
experimental.

> >> If somebody is using unstable he is using this on his own risk.  I'm using
> >> stable on my production servers (even one runs under Woody with Zope 2.5.1).
> >
> > Ok, let's take for example plone. Version 2.1 will be released soon (in
> > few days or weeks), and it will require at least zope 2.7.7 (not
> > available in sarge, which we released a two monthgs ago). So you will
> > remain at plone 2.0.5 and zope 2.7.5 even for your new projects?
> You will not start a new project on a production machine, right?
> There should be an upgrade path from Plone 2.0.5 to Plone 2.1, right?
> If you really need a higher version on a critical machine you are
> on your own and should try a backport.

in general, we cannot offer more than upstream offers. If upstream
doesn't offer an upgrade path, what will you do?

> > Maybe we should provide *official* backports for stable?
> > Any opinion about this?
> If there is somebody interested in this he schould speak up.  Our task is
> to develop packages for Debian and the development area is basically unstable
> (that's why the name).  Experimental is for things that are *very likely to
> break everything*.  If you are able to run your zope* packages without
> breaking other things, there is no reason to hold back.  You might consider
> filing a dummy RC bug to prevent moving the packages to testing if you
> think this would be reasonable.

I strongly disagree about the use of experimental. It's there for such
kind of things, i.e. to develop a completely new installation system.
why don't you want to use experimental?  Are these old habits that you
cannot get rid of? ;-)

  Matthias