On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:46:51PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Le Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 12:50:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns ?crivait: > > If they don't have a good reason to do it, they won't. If "testing+t-p-u" > > doesn't serve their needs better than "testing" _and_ "unstable", > > they won't use it. And it won't -- it has all the problems of unstable > > (untested uploads, dependency issues), and all the problems of testing > > (out of date software). > It's not so evident: t-p-u has packages that maintainers believe to be > ready, Maintainers are often wrong. > > Yes, and the new lib doesn't get into testing until all the packages that > > used the old one have been rebuilt with the new one on all architectures. > Ok, why do you impose that ? Because otherwise all the packages that depend on the old lib and haven't been updated are uninstallable, and testing is unreleasable. > I can imagine that you run into problems if you want to keep only one > version of the source package in "testing" (beause the GPL requires us to keep > a copy of the source for each binary package we have) but if you allow > several versions of the same source package, then there's a possibility > to do like I described. Sorry, but you're just making things up as you go, now. > Sure :-) That's what I'm doing here, I explain my basic idea, people > tell me what is wrong, Yes, and that's the problem: you don't understand the problem well enough to know all the basic pitfalls, and when you find some you try to patch over your solution rather than working out what's fundamental. > I have just *ideas* Ideas are a dime a dozen. Even cheaper, pre-tax. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Description: PGP signature