On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:57:17PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 07:56:13PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > This assumes that experimental is used by a lot of people, which I > > > doubt, especially given the default apt pins and the numbers above. > > Le Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:08:20AM +0100, Mark Brown a écrit : > > There's also the fact that if you remove experimental it's easy enough > > for people to set up their apt repositories somewhere if they want to > > provide packages outside of unstable. > > .... but they would lose the autobuilding from buildd.net. which doesn't work properly anyways. The experimental buildd network is at best a joke. Let's take the glibc 2.6 for example: quoting http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/glibc.html: [2007-05-30] Accepted 2.6-0exp2 in experimental (low) (Aurelien Jarno) I'll let you check in http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glibc/ that only the amd64 binary is present. It's the architecture Aurélien used to upload. It was 2 weeks ago. And I'm sure other examples exist. The experimental uploads of the glibc are very useful to check that the libc builds and passes the testsuite properly. If we have to wait for 2 weeks to have an answer to that test (and it's a still running counter for now) then it's already useless anyways. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpkaIbu2kDZv.pgp
Description: PGP signature