Anthony Towns wrote: > stable, testing, unstable (note the sorting order! I'm so proud.) > > Stable and unstable would remain more or less exactly as they are now. There > aren't any changes to dinstall, or how/where you upload to, etc. > > Testing is a distribution that's completely automatic --- a program > (with minimal human assistance, I'm not entirely clear on how to manage > this) selects packages from unstable that satisfy a number of criteria > and replaces the existing versions in testing with versions from unstable. > > The criteria I think would be best are: > > * binaries for all appropriate architectures have been built > * they are installable using just packages from testing > * they don't make any other package in testing uninstallable > * the package doesn't have any outstanding release-critical bugs > * this version of the package has been in unstable for a fortnight > or more
Nice. :-) Can people who favor package pools come up with a list of things package pools give us that this much simpler approach doesn't? -- see shy jo
