asterisk 1.6.1.0~dfsg-1 binary packages?

[Faidon Liambotis]

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 08:37:11PM -0400, Eloy Paris wrote:
>> P.S. Guys, I realize I'm running unstable and you are uploading these
>> beta packages to unstable, but people running unstable sometimes use
>> unstable for production-type things. What's the rationale for
>> uploading a beta of something as critical as a PBX to unstable;
>> wouldn't it be better to upload mission critical, non-stable, beta
>> software to experimental?
> 
> Debian unstable is *not* intended for release of unstable code.  It is
> intended for stable code, which needs to be tested together - i.e. being
> unstable as *distribution*.
No, it is intended for release of code, which will be tested for its
stability so it can become part of testing and hence the next stable
release.

Eloy, I'm sorry for your problems, but if you wanted something stable
you should have used stable.

That doesn't mean of course that we'd like to upload crap to unstable.

First a bit of background: Digium is maintaining several branches
concurrently. Right now, the current, recently released versions are
	1.2.34
	1.4.26.1
	1.6.0.13
	1.6.0.14-rc1
	1.6.1.4
	1.6.1.5-rc1
	1.6.2.0-beta4
Plus, there's trunk which is what will become 1.6.3.0.
(and yes, they're maintaing all of them using SVN...)

The 1.6.2.x branch was created on March. The first 1.6.2.x version
uploaded in Debian was done on the 28th of July. The upload was done
with the December freeze in mind (before the release team began to
reconsider).

In any case, it's too late to restore 1.6.1 to unstable (both for not
wanting to introduce an epoch and the maintaining overhead of reapplying
patches).

If there are bugs in 1.6.2.x, now it's a good time to find them, report
them and get them fixed. That shouldn't be too hard, especially since
nowadays we don't have a huge patchset on top of Digium's tree.

Thanks,
Faidon