Re: experimental codename
Scripsit Graham Wilson <graham@debian.org>
> 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.
Well, experimental's Packages file itself would become as large as the
one for unstable.
Most people would still want to have unstable as well as experimental
in their sources.list, because the ride might get too rough if you
pulled _everything_ from experimental that there is to pull. For
example, one might be willing to help stress-test the packaging of
perl6, but not at the same time as stress-testing new glibc packages.
At least on my system, synchronizing the Packages file on a daily
basis accounts for a significant fraction of the total amortized
bandwith I use for tracking unstable, simply because I have to
download it in full every day. So inflating experimental/Packages to
full distribution size would probably have a measurable effect on
mirror load level.
--
Henning Makholm "I've been staying out of family
conversations. Do I get credit for that?"
Reply to: