Re: User-contrib, up-to-date stable
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 1997 at 11:50:41AM +0300, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> > What we need here is, IMHO, an "unstable-for-libc5". Not a complete
> > distribution, but simply a repository for packages from unstable
> > recompiled (by official debian maintainers) and packaged using libc5
> > that is in stable (that is to say compiled on a stable system).
> But is this worth the trouble given that it's only an issue for this
> particular upgrade? How soon is 2.0 expected anyway?
I don't know. Consider that for the transition between 1.2 and 1.3 we
had a 6 weeks of frozen testing (if I remember well).
2.0 has much, much more changes, so I don't think that the testing
period will be shorter.
If we'll be very lucky 2.0 could be released for Christmas.
Anyway permitting more users to use (and test) new version of the
software will help shorting the testing permitting an earlyer discover
of bugs (those not libc6 related).
So I think it is worth the trouble.
| email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
> Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .