On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:10:22PM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think that's the way it should be. Experimental isn't a complete > > distribution in the sense that the others are, so it doesn't really > > deserve a codename. > > Isn't it possible that `scud' (I like it too) or `experimental' to be a > complete distribution with exactly the same packages from unstable *but* > the experimental packages? > > What I'm trying to explain is that I like the idea of an extra pool with > the buildd and bts but no automatic move to another pool. I think, DD > and people with chroot can point to this distribution to test things and > it could be a buffer for the new packages.
If this would lead to more developers and beta-testers being able to use experimental, then I think this would be a good idea. People might upload there newer more in-development packages here first, instead of to unstable. Now that I think about it though, this is already possible. You can pin all of experimental just as high as unstable in the APT preferences file. I think the only difference now between your proposal and reality is support from the buildd's (I believe experimental has fairly good support in the BTS). > We put every new packages in `Scud' and when accepted, after some test > by others, we can safer move it to `Sid' with less delay. Every new package, or every new upload? The former might be alright, but the latter would make experimental to unstable what unstable is to testing. -- gram
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
