Re: splitting experimental by arch?
"James R. Van Zandt" <email@example.com> writes:
> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > My thesis is that we do need three levels of instability:
> > stable (released) : for the general public
> > unstable: (beta) : for developers, beta testers, and adventurous users
> > experimental: (alpha) : for people who are hacking the package
> Sounds good to me. A package should go into experimental if it has
> one of these characteristics:
> - hazardous (like defrag was)
> - a prototype program (maybe not fully functional), "for comment"
> - an existing tool, with added prototype code to illustrate a new
> feature (maybe not fully functional), "for comment"
> - a reimplementation of an existing tool - e.g. in a different
> language - which may not be quite right yet
> - Jim Van Zandt
Another thing should be looked at: The dependencies.
A Package should not be moved out of incomming if any package it
depends on is still in incomming or not even there. Also any package
depending on an experimental package should be in experimental.
At the moment Debian unstable can be rendered absolutly useless by
uploading say bash with dependencies that cant be fullfilled yet.
Things like that have happend in the past (at least on m68k) and made
it impossible to install Debian at all.
May the Source be with you.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .