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

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



Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> writes:

> 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?

What about the security updates?! ;)

-- 
  .''`. 
 : :' :rnaud
 `. `'  
   `-    

Attachment: pgpJiIZIJvNXU.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: