Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:10:53PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:28:08PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:26PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > One way around this would be for all of the maintainers of packages
> > > depending on apt to agree to a significant version number increment when
> > > moving to apt 0.6; then such versions could remain in experimental without
> > > being removed.
> > or, since we're now officially in the sarge freeze(!) we could just put
> > it into sid and not worry about the dependency issue, right?
> > i've been using apt .6 on one of my machines, and while i haven't kept
> > a super-close eye on it, i haven't noticed anything that would make
> > me think it an unsuitable candidate for unstable.
> I was just talking with Colin Watson on IRC about that very idea; he says
> that library packages should still be handled carefully in unstable for now.
Right - the issue there is that library soname or shlibs changes cause
larger numbers of other packages not to be propagatable from unstable to
testing, which requires careful coordination. Individual packages are
free to decide that they want to fork a sarge branch, but at that point
they're taking the burden of maintaining that sarge branch in t-p-u upon
themselves. Libraries (and other non-leaf packages) are a different
I'd like to see apt 0.6 in unstable as soon as possible, although I'd
like it even more if it were fixed to stop requiring authentication on
CD-ROMs first so that we don't need to make so many d-i and debian-cd
changes just to keep the installer working after it lands. :-) (I know
Michael Vogt is working on this.)
Colin Watson [email@example.com]