On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 09:42:43AM -0800, Oscar Levi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 12:18:25PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > The idea was that unstable is always unstable. As packages became stable > > > they would be moved to a release distribution which is always kept (or at > > > least there is a reasonable attempt to keep it) as stable and as close to > > > release as possible. > > How does it handle changes that affect all packages (likelibc5->libc6) ? It relies on us coping with a mixture of packages, and not needing to upgrade them all at once -- so a libc6.deb is first moved across, followed by packages that depend on it as they become available. It's still Brian's decision when we've got enough libc6 packages done to say "Yup, that's good enough. Let's release." > Even without the libc5->libc6 migration, I don't think the proposal > has hands and feet. If we model each release as a 'product', then the > idea of migrating stable packages produces two debug phases. First in > the unstable and then in the stable. Just because a package works > among other unstable ones doesn't mean it will work in the stable > environment. This is a mischaracterisation of how unstable is intended to work. Since we would have three distributions: stable, prerelease and unstable, there isn't any longer a need to have every single package in unstable -- the ones that are in operational condition go in prerelease. Following unstable thus means following prerelease with a bunch of upgrades from unstable. Packages only remain in unstable long enough to ensure there aren't any stupid "make-your-system-unusable" bugs. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Description: PGP signature