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

Re: New Markets

Bruce Perens wrote:
> Rick Macdonald:
> > The distribution tree would "just be there", constantly getting updates
> > to individual packages. Any given snapshot at any given time would be
> > complete and stable. One could just get all or selected updates at any
> > time. The dependency scheme would ensure that required bits were there
> > for all updates.
> Well, that's the way it's going to work, I think. There's no reason
> to not move packages from "unstable" to "stable" when they have been
> proven, once our ELF conversion is finished. But that is a better way
> to work for people who get the packages over the net than for people
> who get CDs. For the CD crowd, it's very convenient to have release
> numbers and a somewhat more extended beta-test. 

Understood and abosoultely agreed!

Here is a scenario and a variation. Is this what it will look like:

The distribution site might have directories like this:


where "unstable" is as it is now, where package updates are first placed,
and "stable" is "the-next-release-in-waiting", which would be 1.4 in the
example above. Packages would be moved from unstable to stable after some
amount of exposure. Then, stable would be frozen at some time before the
release of 1.4, and eventually copied to directory "1.4/". 
Once released, 1.4 will never change and will match any 1.4 found on any 

People with net access could watch the "stable" directory, or the "unstable"
if they preferred to be up-to-the-minute.

Alternatively, there wouldn't be a "stable"; only "unstable" which would be
"the-next-release-in-waiting". This doesn't seem as smooth though.

Either of these descriptions close?


Reply to: