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

Re: experimental codename

On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:44:42PM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Graham Wilson <graham@debian.org> writes:
> > 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).
> Also, it's not the same url in the sources.list s/unstable/experimental/

Yes, I forgot this. But the potential users of experimental (developers)
will probably know how to handle there sources.list and preferences

> it's a bit different and for different arches. What about the arches
> `all'? Well, I'm maybe a particular case: powerpc + java ;) but it could
> be the same with sparc + perl or else. Where can I have more information
> about experimental?

Hmm... I am not quite sure I understand you. Can you explain more?

> The main point for me is the buildd and experimental to be a copy *plus*
> exception distribution (the plus exception are _the_ experimental
> packages).

Yes, I think the buildd situation wrt experimental is a hindrance to
wider use of the experimental distribution.

However, I am not (nor do I believe a majority might be) that
experimental should duplicate unstable, with only a few packages (the
experimental ones) being newer. However, with the pool structure
archive, this might not actually mean a duplication of too much space.

But indeed, the same affect can be accomplished by using APT's
preferences file.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: