[25791] in Source-Commits
Re: /svn/athena r25222 - trunk/debathena/scripts/installer
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan Reed)
Tue Jul 12 22:06:30 2011
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Jonathan Reed <jdreed@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <201107130103.p6D13cnP012327@pony.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:06:22 -0400
Cc: "Liz A. Denys" <lizdenys@MIT.EDU>, Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@MIT.EDU>,
source-commits@MIT.EDU
Message-Id: <47229391-7261-4925-BA00-1EEC0A500E24@MIT.EDU>
To: "andrew m. boardman" <amb@MIT.EDU>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On Jul 12, 2011, at 9:03 PM, andrew m. boardman wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonathan Reed wrote:
>>> [keep the apt_release fields independent]
>>
>> I like this idea as well.
>
> I was under the impression (though from a discussion at release-team a
> while ago) that there were some cases in which we were, and maybe still
> are, just getting "development" or whatever and not also "proposed".
>
> Are we sure that's not the case? I thought one of the explicit goals
> here was to deal with hesiod nondeterminism, but if that's really not the
> case then I'm happy to take only and exactly what hesiod lists.
I was wavering at release-team, but I think we want what Hesiod says. (If other people can think of a situation in which we don't want that, that's fine). So, I think we believe what apt_release says (and we should fix auto-update's logic to reflect this), and if apt_release says "no, really, only development", then fine.
-Jon
