Re: Criteria for experimental uploads
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> for packages I'm intimately interested in). In other words,
> experimental is for Alpha packages, unstable is for beta packages,
> tested, and released stand for themselves.
I agree. Most packages in unstable are very robust (but liable to be changed
frequently) and I very rarely have any
major problems with them. It seems a bit daft to lower the overall
robustness of unstable just for one or two packages which may have major
bugs in them and wipe out an entire partition.
Maybe we should have a section for what Guy describes - i.e. "next
generation" packages - for instance when TeTeX was being added (and clashed
with lots of existing packages).
However we _do_ need a place to put new bits of untested code - for instance
a new, rewritten version of dpkg; or maybe a disk-defragger. Personally
speaking, I enjoy trying out beta-quality software, but would like to be
warned of alpha-status stuff.
As Guy says, any package which may cause major havoc should have a STRONG
warning in the description field.
email@example.com | Artifical intelligence - the
www.netforward.com/poboxes/?Adrian.Bridgett | art of making computers act
PGP key available on public key servers | like those in the movies
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .