[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#709058: blends-dev: UNRELEASED and unstable sources.list differ

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Felipe,
> thanks for your bug reports.
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> sources.list.unstable points to testing, but s.l.UNRELEASED points to
>> unstable.
> I confirm that it might be a bit unusual to use something else for
> UNRELEASED than if you do the final upload to unstable.  However, there
> was some request for having one sources.list.xxx that also points to
> unstable.  Do you think this is a real constraint?

I think I take back my comment about the rationale for testing,
because I've just realized that metapackages use recommends by
default, so they can't be entangled in any transition.

So I guess I changed my mind to s.l.unstable should point to unstable.

>  Finally it is a
> config file you can change if needed.

I'd rather not. I find it weird that build configuration can live
outside the package being built.

> If you insist that it should be
> testing, could you suggest some name that really uses unstable?
>> The rationale for testing looks sane,
> Yes, definitely.  We need to build the package against testing if it
> finally should reach testing.
>> so I think UNRELEASED should point to testing too.
> As I said:  Please make some suggestion under what "distribution" you
> like to see metapackages that are faking to target unstable.

I change my mind, so I suggest targeting unstable should use the
unstable keyword.

> Kind regards
>        Andreas.
> PS: Thanks also for your other bug report and specifically the patch.
>     I'll upload tomorrow.

Thanks for developing the tools. Making these metapackages was really easy.


Felipe Sateler

Reply to: