Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 42 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 00:38:04 |
Calls: | 220 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 824 |
Messages: | 121,521 |
Posted today: | 6 |
Dear toolchain, debian-installer, and image maintainers,
We, as the release team, are aware that we are late with the
announcement of the freeze timeline for trixie. After some internal discussions on how we want to handle the freeze for trixie based on the lessons learnt from the bookworm release, we like to get your feedback
on our changes listed below before we announce the freeze schedule.
During the bookworm release we made the following observations:
* motivation and engagement of maintainers drop as the freeze becomes
longer
* the work on d-i and images takes time and requires a non-moving set of
packages to work on
To reduce the time that maintainers of packages not contained in the
build essential / toolchain set or packages that are somewhat relevant
for d-i are affected by the freeze, we hope to keep their engagement up
by delaying the transition and soft freeze, but freezing relevant
packages instead. We would like to get input from debian-boot to define
the relevant criteria so that the freeze is useful for them. We would
start with the following set
packages producing udebs
packages involved in a minimal debootstrap
In the following discussion we will simply call them "udeb producing packages" but better wording is more then welcome.
We thus propose the following timeline:
Milestone 1: Toolchain and d-i freeze
As in bookworm, we start with the freeze of toolchain with the goal to stabilize build essential packages and compilers and interpreters of
major ecosystems (Python, Ruby, Rust, Golang, Haskell, Vala, LLVM). The
list of packages that is involved can be found at [1].
Dear toolchain, debian-installer, and image maintainers,
We, as the release team, are aware that we are late with the
announcement of the freeze timeline for trixie. After some internal discussions on how we want to handle the freeze for trixie based on the lessons learnt from the bookworm release, we like to get your feedback
on our changes listed below before we announce the freeze schedule.
During the bookworm release we made the following observations:
* motivation and engagement of maintainers drop as the freeze becomes
longer
* the work on d-i and images takes time and requires a non-moving set of
packages to work on
To reduce the time that maintainers of packages not contained in the
build essential / toolchain set or packages that are somewhat relevant
for d-i are affected by the freeze, we hope to keep their engagement up
by delaying the transition and soft freeze, but freezing relevant
packages instead. We would like to get input from debian-boot to define
the relevant criteria so that the freeze is useful for them. We would
start with the following set
packages producing udebs
packages involved in a minimal debootstrap
In the following discussion we will simply call them "udeb producing packages" but better wording is more then welcome.
We thus propose the following timeline:
Milestone 1: Toolchain and d-i freeze
As in bookworm, we start with the freeze of toolchain with the goal to stabilize build essential packages and compilers and interpreters of
major ecosystems (Python, Ruby, Rust, Golang, Haskell, Vala, LLVM). The
list of packages that is involved can be found at [1].
We are happy to receive your feedback - especially on the change
regarding d-i. The proposed text for the freeze policy can be found in
the following merge request on salsa:
https://salsa.debian.org/release-team/release.debian.org/-/merge_requests/27
Best
Sebastian for the release team
[1] https://release.debian.org/testing/essential-and-build-essential.txt which we intend to extend with all llvm-toolchain versions that are
planned to be included in the trixie release.
--
Sebastian Ramacher
...
Milestone 1: Toolchain and d-i freeze
As in bookworm, we start with the freeze of toolchain with the goal to stabilize build essential packages and compilers and interpreters of
major ecosystems (Python, Ruby, Rust, Golang, Haskell, Vala, LLVM). The
list of packages that is involved can be found at [1].
...
Milestone 2 (Milestone 1 + 2 months): Transition freeze
At this point we stop starting transitions.
...
Sebastian Ramacher
...
Milestone 3 (Milestone 2 + 1 month): Soft freeze
As with bookworm, with the soft freeze only small and targeted fixed are appropriate. Also, packages not in testing are blocked from migration to testing.
...
Sebastian Ramacher
packages instead. We would like to get input from debian-boot to define
the relevant criteria so that the freeze is useful for them. We would
start with the following set
packages producing udebs
packages involved in a minimal debootstrap
In the following discussion we will simply call them "udeb producing packages" but better wording is more then welcome.
The list of packages that is involved can be found at [1].
[1] https://release.debian.org/testing/essential-and-build-essential.txt
In trixie we will also freeze all packages that produce udebs
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 at 18:35:53 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
In trixie we will also freeze all packages that produce udebs
Is it straightforward to give packages whose udebs are not yet in
active use a semi-automatic exemption from this freeze, while still
applying other reasons they might be frozen?
I'm thinking mainly of src:gtk+3.0, src:vte2.91 and src:gtk4 here. We
added udebs to those packages a while ago, but they aren't in active
use because the graphical installer is still on GTK 2.
I don't fully understand the hint language, but would a permanent "unblock-udeb gtk+3.0", etc. for each of the affected packages perhaps
have the desired effect?
I think src:dbus and maybe some of the AT-SPI stack are in a similar situation: they added udebs a while ago, to unblock the ability to add accessibility technologies to the graphical installer, but as far as
I'm aware they are not in active use.
I've seen suggestions that the GNOME team should be actively removing
the udebs from gtk+3.0, etc. to take it out of the udeb freeze set,
but that would require going back through NEW (with the associated
delays) when udebs are wanted again, and I'm not sure that's
desirable.
Regarding the GTK 2 installer, I have been slowly learning how to test cdebconf and refactoring it to use a more GTK-3-friendly threading
model, but I can't make any guarantees about when that will be ready
for review/merge or wider testing, and I certainly don't think it will
be production-ready by the end of the calendar year; "early forky
cycle" is probably a more realistic target for a GTK 3 installer.