Re: User-contrib, up-to-date stable
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Registered developers may build and upload newer versions of packages that
> may be used with "stable", but will not become part of "stable". These will
> go in a special directory named <what do we name it?>. What packages are built
> depend on the developers judgement of what is necessary.
> The <whatever we name it> directory should have its own Packages file,
> and should be clearly marked:
> These are updated versions of packages that can be used with the
> stable system. They are not well-tested. Use them at your own risk.
> In the case of a severe bug, you should revert to the version of the
> program in the stable system. If you report a bug with these programs,
> be sure to report the version, and note in your report that you got
> the program from this directory.
Why not use <codename>-updates for this purpose?
As I understand it, developers upload their packages to incoming on master,
and Guy decides whether to merge it into 1.3.1rX or just stick it in
It looks to me like bo-updates is already fulfilling a very similar purpose
to what everyone has in mind for "stable libc5 updates".
I had thought that bo-updates was going to work like rex-updates did, but
it isn't. Instead it seems as if some stuff is getting moved into bo-fixed
without ever passing through bo-updates. This makes it tough to keep up
with bo by hand.
Alternatively, we could call it "bo-enhanced"; any MIS Debian users would
love it (though perhaps not as much as "bo-paradigm-shifted"). :)
G. Branden Robinson | A committee is a life form with six or
Purdue University | more legs and no brain.
email@example.com | -- Robert Heinlein
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
firstname.lastname@example.org . Trouble?
e-mail to email@example.com .