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

Re: stability of non-free?



joost@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl (joost witteveen) writes:

> Should packages in non-free be somehow more stable than
> the ones in unstable?

No, non-free packages are at least as unstable as unstable.

> Or, is it OK to make non-free packages depend on unstable, and
> maybe we should add a README to non-free, explaining
> that the packages in there are viewed as unstable as "unstable",
> and that the packages in non-free may depend on "unstable"?

A better idea would be to add a line to the package's description.
`foo depends on bar, which is currently only in the unstable
directory.'

I hear a lot of complaints about packages in non-free depending on
"unavailable" packages, packages which are actually in unstable.  Some
of the complaints are due to ignorance, and others are due to
disagreements with the ftp hierarchy.  A more verbose description
would at least stymie the first bunch.


Guy





--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com


Reply to: