Re: Potato revision 1

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>]

yOn Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:

> Hi guys,

Hi Anthony,

>...
> I'm also inclined to let in a couple of interesting, non-essential,
> bug-free packages that didn't make potato r0.  I think the following
> rules are reasonable:
> 
> 	* only allowing at most a handful of packages fitting this description
> 	* the package should have no RC bugs
> 	* there should be something particularly interesting and worthwhile
>           about the package
> 	* it should be Priority: extra, so it's as out of the way as possible
> 	* it shouldn't be in base, or by a task- package (again, so as to be
> 	  as out of the way as possible)
> 
> console-apt seems like a good candidate, to my mind. Perhaps a -2.4.x-test
> kernel might be another.

I don't think it's a good idea to include a 2.4.x-test kernel:

- It's still extremely unstable (e.g. ext2 file system corruption very
  recently).
- You have to update several other packages to provide the right
  infrastructure (e.g. ppp).


> Cheers,
> aj

cu,
Adrian

-- 
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
                -- Mahatma Ghandi