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

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:36:28AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:36:30PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > [experimental/gnome; experimental/libtool; experimental/kde; etc]
> > > Now, aj, what do you feel about this, is this solution technically
> > > feasible without too much modification of the current scheme ? 
> > I don't believe so; I've looked into similar things before, but it's
> > non-trivial.
> please could you elaborate on these "things"?

There's not much to elaborate. The general idea is "making new suites
that people can upload to in the archive".

The other option is to have apt-get/aptitude/etc have better ways
of selecting things from experimental; so you say "Tag: gnome2.6" on
all the stuff you upload for gnome 2.6, edit something in /etc/apt,
and all is good. The upside is that that doesn't require any archive
or infrastructure changes, so it's pretty easy. The downside is
it doesn't let you have the same package built differently for
"experimental/gnome2.6" and "experimental/kdeblah", should you want it.
I'm not really convinced that's not a win anyway, though.

> > > If so, then i will setup and maintain a powerpc autobuilder for it.
> > Setting up a ppc autobuilder for experimental as-is wouldn't be any harder
> > than in the above scenario, I would've thought.

(Making autobuilding work for /multiple/ experimental suites requires
even more changes)


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: