Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
On 14/06/07 at 08:31 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I think that a package that has been in unstable for a whole release
> > cycle without entering testing should probably live in experimental or
> > not in Debian at all. I guess that is something most people can agree
> > on.
> Hm, I was tempted to think "yes, of course", but how about foo-snapshot
> or bar-cvs? Why shouldn't they be in unstable, autobuilt
I think that such packages are OK in unstable, but some might argue that
they should go in experimental.
> and available as Build-Depends for baz-bzr?
That's dangerous. baz-bzr will be allowed to transition to testing
(b-deps are not considered for testing transition), but won't be able to
build from source in testing, which is RC.
I'm working on analyzing snapshot.d.n data to get an accurate list of
"when was package X last in testing ?".
| Lucas Nussbaum
| firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: email@example.com GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |