On Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 12:19:06AM -0800, Guy Maor wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > And that there doesn't seem to be anywhere for single-package staging to > > be done. > Yes, there is - experimental. Last I heard experimental was for packages that were likely to completely trash your system -- not just not work, but actively reformat hard drives and stuff like that. I quote from the developer's reference: ] Developers should be very selective in the use of the _experimental_ ] distribution. Even if a package is highly unstable, it could well ] still go into _unstable_; just state a few warnings in the ] description. However, if there is a chance that the software could do ] grave damage to a system, it might be better to put it into ] _experimental_. That seems just a little bit strong for things like "I've changed how portmapper gets upgraded; it should work, but might not. Run /etc/init.d/portmap restart if it doesn't". And because I just know you're going to say "so just put it in unstable, it's meant to be unstable afterall", well, that's not entirely true. People *do* run important servers off unstable, and it would be nice if we could avoid inflicting them with some of the really critical bugs. > As I see it, these "super unstable"[1] distributions are a place where > maintainers can try to stabilize a large group of packages at once. (this would be a good thing to setup for slink and 2.2 I guess, too) > [1] Hmm, less stable than unstable. Unusable? :) ``Windows'' ? :) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <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.''
Attachment:
pgpr0VaBSv69D.pgp
Description: PGP signature