Re: Proposal: incremental release process (the package pool)
Anthony Towns wrote:
> stable, testing, unstable (note the sorting order! I'm so proud.)
> Stable and unstable would remain more or less exactly as they are now. There
> aren't any changes to dinstall, or how/where you upload to, etc.
> Testing is a distribution that's completely automatic --- a program
> (with minimal human assistance, I'm not entirely clear on how to manage
> this) selects packages from unstable that satisfy a number of criteria
> and replaces the existing versions in testing with versions from unstable.
> The criteria I think would be best are:
> * binaries for all appropriate architectures have been built
> * they are installable using just packages from testing
> * they don't make any other package in testing uninstallable
> * the package doesn't have any outstanding release-critical bugs
> * this version of the package has been in unstable for a fortnight
> or more
Can people who favor package pools come up with a list of things package
pools give us that this much simpler approach doesn't?
see shy jo