Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable
- From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 06:17:09 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20040415221000.GC30253@nubol.int.oskuro.net> <20040417165713.GA878@quetzlcoatl.dodds.net> <20040417231518.GA26036@azure.humbug.org.au> <20040418122454.GC24239@jaimedelamo.eu.org> <20040420113708.GA20302@azure.humbug.org.au> <20040424141322.GA24602@pegasos> <20040426124531.GB14190@azure.humbug.org.au> <20040426133808.GJ25779@grep.be> <email@example.com> <20040426160834.GM25779@grep.be>
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> When autobuilding the experimental distribution, I'd think one would
> want to install packages from experimental (otherwise there wouldn't be
> much point). Since experimental is explicitely for packages that are
> expected to be broken, I suspect the number of uninstallation failures
> and, thus, required maintenance cycles, will be much higher; as such,
> the burden on the buildd maintainer will be a lot higher than it is on
> an unstable buildd maintainer.
Maybe packages in experimental should be autobuilt with pbuilder instead.
Since experimental is for packages which are expected to be broken, a more
severe build testing environment wouldn't hurt. Since there are many fewer
packages in experimental than in testing, the significant slowdown probably
wouldn't hurt much either. And it should reduce the burden a lot.
This doesn't really solve the question of how to know when to grab
dependencies from experimental and when to grab them from unstable, but
that's another matter.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.