Re: testing, unstable, and dependencies
Marcelo E. Magallon wrote on Thu Feb 06, 2003 um 12:29:24PM:
> > is known to build with libfoo2-dev as well (the configure script in
> > most software detects this and acts accordingly).
> Ok, fair. How do you propose to handle that?
This could be handled with conditional dependencies, see the old wishlist bug
against dpkg in the BTS.
Build-Depends: libfoo-dev (>>3)
Build-Depends-Cond: unstable -> libfoo-dev (>>4)
So maintainers could force unstable-autobuilders to wait for the new
libfoo-dev version, and allow all others to build with the old version.
> > give the users the advantage of having a stable system with the
> > latest applications.
> What we call "stable" is the product of a long release cycle during
> which people have tested, debugged and fixed packages. Once you add
> random stuff to that system "to keep it up to date", it's not "stable"
That is Debians general problem. We do not provide a distribution branch that
has a stable core and testing (and partially tested) packages around it. There
is no real modularity. We have only consitency between packages of one branch,
and an upgrade path keeping this consitency for the whole bunch of new