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

Re: experimental codename



On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:10:22PM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> writes:
> > I think that's the way it should be. Experimental isn't a complete
> > distribution in the sense that the others are, so it doesn't really
> > deserve a codename.
> 
> Isn't it possible that `scud' (I like it too) or `experimental' to be a
> complete distribution with exactly the same packages from unstable *but*
> the experimental packages?
> 
> What I'm trying to explain is that I like the idea of an extra pool with
> the buildd and bts but no automatic move to another pool. I think, DD
> and people with chroot can point to this distribution to test things and
> it could be a buffer for the new packages.

If this would lead to more developers and beta-testers being able to use
experimental, then I think this would be a good idea. People might
upload there newer more in-development packages here first, instead of
to unstable.

Now that I think about it though, this is already possible. You can pin
all of experimental just as high as unstable in the APT preferences
file. I think the only difference now between your proposal and reality
is support from the buildd's (I believe experimental has fairly good
support in the BTS).

> We put every new packages in `Scud' and when accepted, after some test
> by others, we can safer move it to `Sid' with less delay.

Every new package, or every new upload? The former might be alright, but
the latter would make experimental to unstable what unstable is to
testing.

-- 
gram

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: