On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:44:42PM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > Graham Wilson <graham@debian.org> writes: > > If this would lead to more developers and beta-testers being able to > > use experimental, then I think this would be a good idea. People might > > upload there newer more in-development packages here first, instead of > > to unstable. > > > > Now that I think about it though, this is already possible. You can > > pin all of experimental just as high as unstable in the APT > > preferences file. I think the only difference now between your > > proposal and reality is support from the buildd's (I believe > > experimental has fairly good support in the BTS). > > Also, it's not the same url in the sources.list s/unstable/experimental/ Yes, I forgot this. But the potential users of experimental (developers) will probably know how to handle there sources.list and preferences files. > it's a bit different and for different arches. What about the arches > `all'? Well, I'm maybe a particular case: powerpc + java ;) but it could > be the same with sparc + perl or else. Where can I have more information > about experimental? Hmm... I am not quite sure I understand you. Can you explain more? > The main point for me is the buildd and experimental to be a copy *plus* > exception distribution (the plus exception are _the_ experimental > packages). Yes, I think the buildd situation wrt experimental is a hindrance to wider use of the experimental distribution. However, I am not (nor do I believe a majority might be) that experimental should duplicate unstable, with only a few packages (the experimental ones) being newer. However, with the pool structure archive, this might not actually mean a duplication of too much space. But indeed, the same affect can be accomplished by using APT's preferences file. -- gram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature