On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 02:05:06PM -0400, Walter Tautz wrote: > So the above link is not a truly representive of a testing release. I guess > this is related to the fact that openoffice is built with gcc3.x.x? > > Question: Should we just point to the unstable distribution of openoffice > instead? I tried to explain this in my announcement: - Not exactly equivalent to the current testing/Woody in the Debian archives - these packages are still compiled on sid systems, although I try to make it easy to install on a Woody machine by mirroring the packages from sid that are needed (currently libgcc1 and possibly libfreetype6 in the near future). If we get round to explicitly compiling packages on Woody systems, they will end up in a 'woody' aptable source. The difference is not one of 'this is compiled on distro X', but the difference between packages that are known to be reasonably good, and those which are not yet ready. The issues with the 1.0.1rcX packages are: - A libstlport problem with PPC - Dependency problems (it is possible to mix 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 packages) - Unpopular default user install directory - We expect the real 1.0.1 announce in the next day or two. The problem you had with libgcc1 and our mirrors is odd, becuase I have not changed anything at all - in fact all I did was rename the 'unstable' directory to 'testing' and generated a new 'unstable'. Chris
Attachment:
pgpbGP1HbLKQK.pgp
Description: PGP signature