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