On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 03:50:08PM -0700, debuser@platinum.globalmart.com wrote: > > You wouldn't have these problems if you would ignore the damn code names > > and track the appropriate distribution. If you want to track unstable > > point to unstable, not woody. > > > > _Don't_ _use_ _code_ _names_. > > But I did not want to track unstable, I wanted to track woody. That is, I > didn't want "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade" to start tracking sid the > moment sid became available. I wanted to stick with woody when it became > frozen/stable. This is what I did near the end of potato's development. > But, I guess I can't do that anymore. You're not listening. You can still do that. It's just that this _one time_, when testing was introduced, the "woody" distribution experienced a "hiccup" as it became testing and the new unstable appeared. As David Maze says, this should never happen again. I beleive that sid will always equal unstable (but I could be wrong :) The plan as I understand it is for new code names to become "testing", eligible packages from the current unstable pool (which is a constantly moving target) are elevated to testing as appropriate. I respect John Hasler's opinion, but in this case I must disagree with him. It's useful to track code names if you like tracking a code base as it moves from stage to stage. On the other hand, perhaps the ability to track "testing" will change my mind on the code name issue ... Cheers, -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Inc. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:nnorman@micromuse.com | -- Patton
Attachment:
pgp4nuGEJp6QQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature