On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 12:06:24PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > The problem is that other packages which might depend from a package > > which is broken on one architecture will not move into testing. If you > > would keep those packages out of unstable you can be sure that you > > build your own package based on packages which have all the same version > > in unstable. This is the relevant bit of the suggestion. See the lot > > of packages which can not enter testing because a dependency is not > > fulfilled on a certain architecture. > > > Ah so, the staging area is for a program with all its dependencies? > Isn't testing simply thought for this? No, it simply means that a developer who runs unstable is building his packages against libraries and other dependencies that are guaranteed to at least *build* on all supported architectures. The advantage here is that it keeps unstable and testing a bit more in sync, avoiding the case where a package can't migrate to testing for the simple reason that the dependencies won't build everywhere. I think this is a very good idea. It gives us some of the benefit that we could get by having developers build their packages against testing (which has been suggested in the past) while avoiding the problems with that idea. noah
Attachment:
pgpj7rVFFjO7x.pgp
Description: PGP signature