Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 02:00:14AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:23:48AM -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > Well, in my experience, testing is most useful immediately following a
> > new stable release, and least useful immediately preceding a new stable
> > release. If you were to have started using Sarge right after Woody came
> > out, I think you would have been rather happy. But now that everyone's
> > trying to get Sarge ready to ship out, there's not many current things
> > going in.
> Isn't the point of testing that it should contain what will become stable?
> If testing is what is supposed to be the next release, then it seems
> pointless to even bother. "Testing" still has Mozilla 1.0. That's what,
> 2 years old?
We're working on it, but the mozilla package is buggy, which makes it
difficult to make the testing management scripts happy with it.
> Unless I misunderstand the structure, shouldn't "testing" have lots of
> stuff in it just prior to a new release? There's almost zero updates in
> testing ..
That's not true. KDE 3 went in just a few days ago (albeit somewhat
broken for now), for example.
> > > In a perfect world, people would hammer things and then roll them into
> > > testing once they had been in unstable long enough without bug reports.
> > > This would allow us to keep high-uptime systems running the same kernels
> > > and such as our test/burn/destroy/rebuild laptops ;-)
> > Well, that's basically exactly how it works. There's quite a few extra
> > details but that's the "meat and potatoes" of it so to speak. :)
> Then why is there really zero updates in testing?
That's just rubbish, sorry. (I help manage testing; I watch what it's
doing almost every day.)
Colin Watson [email@example.com]