On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 05:59:20PM +0000, Thaddeus H. Black wrote: > Debram (part of Debtags) needs something approximating > a final sarge package list. The latest > /dists/sarge/main/binary-i386/Packages file > (2 April 2005) is publicly available, and this probably > suffices, but I have one question for Colin or whoever > else can briefly answer. > Question: at the moment, does testing significantly lack > packages which > * were present in testing recently, and > * will probably rejoin testing before the release? > In other words, is the present Packages file materially > unreliable as an approximate final sarge package list? > If no, then I would just use the present Packages file. > If yes, then I have a backup plan. If the current release plan holds, the final Packages file may vary by a few dozen packages in or out; I wouldn't expect it to be much more than that. > If the question seems too subjective, I would say that > I am not especially worried about some libobscure- > newthingie-perl which might sneak into testing just > before the freeze. My concern is for older, established > packages which (for reasons I do not understand well) > happen temporarily to be absent from testing on my > sample date. Should I worry about this? Please advise. Generally, the packages that get removed due to RC-bugginess are leaf packages or clusters of niche packages; packages that are of self-evident importance get fixed rather than removed. Maybe that answers your question? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature