Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?
On 19-Nov-02, 17:10 (CST), Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:26:04PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >This has been hashed out before. I recommend list archives to you,
> >friend, for the last time I had to explain this.
>
> I've seen the topic come up before, but I've never seen a convincing
> rationale for the current behavior.
If you refuse to be convinced, there's not much we can do to convince you.
> This explanation discounts the possibility of people testing the
> unstable compilers by building things themselves (outside of the
> buildds.)
You do realize that not everything in the archives goes through the
buildds? If the buildds used the testing libraries, then we'd have
a situation where the main developer upload would be build against
unstable (because that's what developers are supposed to do), and the
buildd versions against testing. That would help a lot. <<<=== sarcasm
No, the current system isn't perfect, but it's closer than the
alternatives.
Of course, we could just build everything against testing, and eliminate
unstable entirely.
The whole point of the unstable->testing->stable system to get a stable,
tested, consistent, releasable OS. A subgoal is to keep RC bugs out of
testing. How do get that if the packages don't actually *use* unstable?
Yes, it's frustrating to be running testing and have to wait for the
latest and greatest to make their way in from unstable. But hurrying
that along by cheating just make testing more like unstable, which
doesn't benefit the significant number of people who run testing as a
"newer, not quite as stable as stable but pretty close" distribution.
Now, you personally don't have to play that game. If you want something
from unstable, but with the testing libraries, I recommend to the
wonders of 'apt-get source'.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
Reply to: