Re: "testing" improvements
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:26:51PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Since testing is meant to be used by people willing to test our
> future release, I don't see any reason why a given package which
> built successfully on a given arch can't enter testing if its
> dependencies are satisfied on that architecture. Hence, the package
> is getting tested as soon as possible, which makes fixes happen more
> quickly in unstable. Basically, this could be achieved by adding an
> architecture tag to the BTS (this has been asked for quite some time
> now by Marcus Brinkmann). Of course, this wouldn't prevent us from
> fixing bug on every architecture.
>
> What do you think of this?
I though unstable was for testing. As I see it testing should be in a
releasable state when it comes to package dependencies and should be
consistent across architectures.
--
Peter Mathiasson, peter at mathiasson dot nu, http://www.mathiasson.nu
GPG Fingerprint: A9A7 F8F6 9821 F415 B066 77F1 7FF5 C2E6 7BF2 F228
Reply to: