[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#197049: ITP: conglomerate -- an XML editor for GNOME

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 08:27:19AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Matthew P. McGuire <gray@shadowglade.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > If experimental or unstable would not be suitable, how about using an 
> > unofficial apt repository for it? This would get the package started 
> > along side the earlier developement of the application and might 
> > possibly make it easier to manage in the long run. Once the app and 
> > package reach a more stable point, place that version in experimental or 
> > unstable. Does that seem reasonable or am I missing something?
> There are pros and cons for using an external repository:
> + external repositories are easier to integrate in apt - you just get
>   this single package, if you added experimental to sources.list at
>   least dselect would probably show any packages available in exp. for
>   selection.  (According to apt_preferences(5) apt won't make
>   automatic /upgrades/ to versions in experimental.)

Notice that this could be solved if we changed experimental to be a
per source package repository, this way you could add
experimental/conglomerate to your apt sources, and gain the benefit you
are speaking of here.

> + less overhead

Well, less overhead for the user, but more for the repository
maintainer, who has to generate the package file and all.

> - less visibility. - Don't underestimate the fact that
>   http://packages.debian.org/yourpackage works even if yourpackage is
>   only in experimental.
> - No Debian BTS.

Ok, this is the most important point. Especially in the case of such a
broken package, having the BTS available is a great plus.


Sven Luther

Reply to: