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

[Joel Konkle-Parker <jjk3@msstate.edu>]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 09:53:16AM -0600, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> > >         unstable
> > >        /        \
> > >       /          \
> > > desktop-testing     testing
> > >      |            |
> > >      |            |
> > > desktop-stable      stable
> >
> >
> > I would do it differently. What about the following:
> >
> >
> > unstable base         unstable add-ons
> >     |                       |
> >     |                       |
> > testing base                 |
> >     |                       |
> >     |                       |
> > stable base            stable add-ons
> > ...
> > The server systems that require consistency in their environments would 
> > simply use the base system, which would consist of the basic 'server' 
> > packages.
>
>
> What's a "basic 'server' package" that wouldn't be updated for a long 
> time in your scheme?
>
> Perl?
> PHP?
> SpamAssassin?


All of the above? I'm not real sure, I haven't fleshed out in my mind 
which packages would go where. I see the base system consisting of 
infrastructure packages that form kind of a base set of tools. Things 
that would cause mass breakage if updated regularly without a release 
process. So definately Perl. Add-ons would consist of desktop 
environment stuff, IM clients, games, e-mail clients, etc.


--
Joel Konkle-Parker
Webmaster  [Ballsome.com]

E-mail     [jjk3@msstate.edu]
Phone      [662-518-1636]