Re: Grades of stable-ness [was: GNOME --> potato: let's do it!]
- To: ccwf@bacchus.com (Charles C. Fu)
- Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Grades of stable-ness [was: GNOME --> potato: let's do it!]
- From: Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net>
- Date: 01 May 1999 11:05:57 -0700
- Message-id: <87hfpw3bsq.fsf@thrak.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
- In-reply-to: ccwf@bacchus.com's message of "30 Apr 1999 20:32:26 -0700"
- References: <19990501004753.A5796@vega.telepac.pt> <199905010002.TAA16659@taumsauk.cs.wustl.edu> <19990430205438.C219@jenner> <87n1zpsbw5.fsf@yelm.east.bacchus.com>
ccwf@bacchus.com (Charles C. Fu) writes:
> So, a semi-stable repository would be great for people like me. Of
> course, it would also be great if apt and dselect let you easily
> pick some packages from stable and others from unstable: I'm more
> interested in trying out some packages than others.
Actually, we have a semi-stable repository. It's named "unstable".
Stuff that Will Cause Breakage(TM) can generally be found in
projects/experimental, or in other separate repositories (such as
gnome-staging). I agree that it would be nice if it were easier to
choose some packages from stable and some from unstable (and maybe
even some from experimental or whatever). Might be worth a wishlist
bug against apt, but it's not really a policy issue.
Followups should probably go to -devel or some other more appropriate
list. (-deity?)
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: