[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:34:53PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> 1) experimental
> The hacker playground. Dodgy uploads allowed. No guarantees to anyone  
> on the sanity of anything there.
> 2) unstable
> * Whatever was thoroughly tested by developpers in experimental and is  
> considered ready for the masses, is cautiously uploaded here. New glibc  
> versions that have been thoroughly debugged would fit this category.
> * Trusted packages entering Debian for the first time and which were  
> built against Testing dependencies also enter the release chain here.  
> New releases of Evolution based upon GTK2 would fit into this category.
> Architectures don't have to be in sync, although an attempt is made to  
> build on all of Debian's supported architectures, as a first exercise  
> in QA on the package; RC bugs are fixed and a new build is uploaded,  
> until the package has passed the usual 14-day rule and finally builds  
> on all architectures, at which point it trickles down to Testing.
> [...]
> Hopefully, the above made sense.

I don't know if I agree with the idea of building against testing
(though I believe that is not exactly what you said). I also don't agree
with your assessment of debian-installer (later in this thread).

However, I really like your ideas about unstable and experimental. Maybe
experimental should be used more often to decrease the churn in
unstable. Of course, there are some issues with using testing, namely,
the lack of autobuilders, and (I frequently hear this on
debian-gtk-gnome) difficulty with pinning.

The first could be addressed by individuals committing time and machines
to build for experimental. I can volunteer to build for alpha, i386,
mips (soon), and powerpc.

The second could be addressed by someone writing a short howto on how to
set up the preferences file for pulling certain packages from


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: