Re: The stable/testing/unstable branches not a solution ?

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:07:02PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 09:53:16AM -0600, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:
> 
> > I would do it differently. What about the following:
> > 
> > unstable base         unstable add-ons
> >      |                       |
> > testing base                 |
> >      |                       |
> > stable base            stable add-ons
> > 
> > The release would consist of a base system (or server system) with a 
> > drastically reduced number of packages. The rest of the packages would 
> > be assembled in parallel, going from unstable to stable as soon as 
> > they're ready (i.e. not released all at once).
> 
> The selection of packages in the base system could come directly from
> package priorities.
> 
> The good point of all this is that it would allow to have a unique,
> fairly updated, stable core system upon which custom debians and derived
> distros could be based.
>...

<scnr>

Support for kernel 2.6 will be added in our next stable base that will 
be released in at about three years. [1]

</scnr>

> Ciao,
> 
> Enrico

cu
Adrian

[1] a new major release of the kernel always requires an update of
    several high priority packages

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed