On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 21:18 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:04:32PM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > > it has an artificial RC bug to stop it from entering testing, because > > the non-ESR releases aren't supportable in stable. > An artificial bug to keep something out of testing is a little bit > strange. There is precedent for it. Another example would be linux-grsec.. > Isn't this why we have the "experimental" branch? > > We could have firefox ESR in unstable and firefox latest in > experimental, both named "firefox". I see experimental as a place for short-lived branches, and I think that where there are long periods between stable releases it can be useful to provide both stable and unstable versions in unstable. (We don't do this with linux, but with more developer effort available I could imagine providing a linux-lts that e.g. would follow 4.4.y until 4.10 is released. But only one of them could build linux-libc-dev.) (I would be interested to know what fraction of unstable users also have experimental enabled as a source. Does popcon report which suites are enabled in APT sources, and if not could that be added? Does it report enough information to tell how many users install experimental versions?) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Editing code like this is akin to sticking plasters on the bleeding stump of a severed limb. - me, 29 June 1999
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part