On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Lalo Martins wrote: > This proposal includes erradication of the "experimental" area, > because very few maintaiers use it, because it's "out of the > way" for people to download from it, and because it will be > redundant with the "pool" layer.
Like Gregory said, experimental serves a purpose that is not covered by your 4 pools - software in there literally does not work.. > dependencies resolvable withing "working". This may be checked > automatically, the necessary code is already in apt-get. If this Actually it isn't.. APT has algorithms to check a subset of the possible conditions, but does not check certain conditions involving conflicts, which prove to be extremely difficult. [Note this only applies to the distribution as a whole, ie the apt-cache unmet command] > 3: To be nicer on mirrors, Working should at all times be simply > a forest of symlinks into Pool, because mirrors can't handle the > movement of a file (they just delete it from the old location > and download it again for the new one). Actually our mirror network is being upgraded to handle hard links which obviosly solve the migration problem. > 4: dpkg-scanpackages, or whatever is used to generate Packages > files for apt, must be fixed so that when multiple versions are > found, the newest one is used (currently it uses the first one > found, which will give filesystem-dependent results). dpkg-scanpackages should just include all available versions, the APT GUI's people are writing can make use of that. [dselect can get upset if not used through apt, but it could be patched] > delete the "project/experimental" area. Of course the promotion > automating software must be working and tested by then. In 2 months? Not likely.. Jason
