On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 01:21:04PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 01:12:43PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > I consider binary packages as extrem useful to check for dependency > > changes etc, > > That can be done by having an archive of packages files alone. > > > or for fixing issues in some core packages where you need to take an > > older version for building a newer one. > > Would one really do that after 6 months, the current on-and-about > keeping time for .deb's on ftp-master & merkel? I seriously doubt that > -- for past stable releases and revisions, ok, but for unstable/testing? > Those are by definition development branches, and older .deb's loose > relevance after some time, nobody has them anymore, and whatever effect > they had is no longer supported anyway in not a single way. Here's a use-case I had for snapshot.d.n -- I needed debs which matched reasonably closely with the d-i rc2 release for use in an installfest. The nightly/weekly d-i builds didn't work for various reasons, and d-i failed to be happy with the debs currently in testing. So, back to s.d.n for the day the d-i rc2 came out, get the relevant debs, and -- lo and behold -- it all Just Worked. Without s.d.n I would have been very dead in the water, and there'd quite possibly be 40 less Debian machines in the world. Whilst snapshot.d.n might not be the most core of Debian services, I reckon it has it's uses -- if for no other reason than as a resource for collecting interesting historical statistics. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature