Re: splitting experimental by arch?
- To: Debian Development <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: splitting experimental by arch?
- From: Christian Schwarz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 01:26:49 +0100 (CET)
- Message-id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980202012156.15394A-100000@monet>
- In-reply-to: <87vhv03s4d.fsf@1Cust11.max4.los-angeles.ca.ms.uu.net>
On 31 Jan 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
> > Yes, I too had this misconception when I was a newbie developer. Maybe we
> > need some documentation added somewhere to discourage it.
> Yes, I need to add some stuff to the developer's reference about
> things like this.
Yes, this definitely should be documented there. If we get a consensus
about the actual `experimental policy' I'll update the manual.
> I once tried to propose one simple rule that a package can't go to
> experimental unless there's already a version of it in unstable. I
> was extremely surprised at the very negative reaction, and I backed
I think that this idea is `too simple:' if a package (say defrag in the
early days) is really dangerous, why would you need an older version of
the package (probably even more dangerous) in unstable just to be allowed
to get the newer version into experimental? This doesn't sound logical to
AFAIR, we already had agreed on a definition like this: experimental
is only for `dangerous' software, which is likely to damage your system.
Every thing else (even alpha versions) may go into unstable.
However, we might consider having a few packages in unstable which will
not be included in the `frozen' distribution automatically, for example,
if the upstream maintainers don't want us to include it in a stable Debian
-- Christian Schwarz
PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
CS Software goes online! Visit our new home page at
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .