Re: 'testing' packages under 'stable'
On Wednesday, October 17, 2001 11:24 AM, adam@debian.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 05:10:29PM +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> > Nick Phillips <nwp@lemon-computing.com> writes:
> > > The other problem that I hinted at above is the fact that too many
> > > users feel that they have to move over to testing.
> > >
> > > Surely there must be some way that we can improve this situation -
> >
> > It might be sufficient to specifically document the procedure for
> > building a package from testing under stable, given that it often is
> > no more difficult than unpack, build, binary.
>
> There are a lot of woody/unstable packages that will simply not build on
> stable, due to Build-Dep's on the new perl or other things that are only
> present in unstable.
And the resulting, uncontrolled, permutations of "modified"
stable systems will be a problem for future stable releases.
Would maintainers, then, be responsible for stable upgrades
to these hybrid systems? They would, in fact, be the recipients
of the resulting bug reports.
Further, supporting the stablePLUS systems would be no
easier than supporting testing--and would probably be harder.
Consider help via deb-user: questions and resolutions would
have to concern not only the distribution but the
distribution and the particular versions of "after-market"
packages installed as well.
Testing seems a perfect distribution for those users who are
in the "just-in-time" groove of system requirements but can
weather a few gliches. We just need to manage expectations
more effectively.
-g
Reply to: