Nick Phillips wrote: > [/me puts head in clouds...] > > I wonder how easy it would be to keep a collection of, say, all the > essential packages from unstable built on stable. Hmm... Isn't libc essential? Well, required anyway. Sounds like you have described sid to me. But if I join you in those clouds and change the specification to say no shared library updates above stable instead then I think we have something useful. In this dream world would it be possible to have a track that is all stable shared libs but the latest executables? Of course if something requires functionality updated in a shared library then that package can't transfer to this backport track. And there would need to be checks that a shared library does not sneak through hidden in a package where one would not expect it. But others that don't need that do transfer and this would be an automatic backport to stable track. That seems like a workable model to me. Okay, shoot me down too. Why won't that work. For one it is really too complicated to pull off easily and automatically. Bob
Attachment:
pgpboZFksYXvA.pgp
Description: PGP signature