Re: Proposal: incremental release process (the package pool)

[Yann Dirson <dirson@debian.org>]

I like Anthony's proposal.  I'd suggest the following drawbacks can be
easily addressed.

> The other is that it implies doubling the bandwidth required to mirror
> Debian, once to mirror `unstable/foo' then a fortnight later, to mirror
> `testing/foo'. A package pool is one way of solving this, but it makes it
> difficult to mirror a single architecture.

We can just use (per-arch) pools of package, and have "unstable" and
"testing" contain only symlinks to the pools, which would have to
accept to hold several versions of a package.

Maybe we can even accept to have more than unstable and testing
versions of the packages in the pool, as Lalo suggested in his own
proposal, but the tools (apt frontends, dinstall) will then need to be
modified to make use of them - that could be using a Packages file for
the pool, which may only contain the extra packages not symlinked from
"unstable" and "testing".

[Please CC followups to me, I'm not subscribe to debian-project]
--
Yann Dirson <dirson@debian.org>