On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Can people who favor package pools come up with a list of things package
> pools give us that this much simpler approach doesn't?
I like this proposal. But I'd list the difference as:
this is more automated, mine is more maintainer-driven.
More automated usually means less control, but this case leaves
enought control.
The problem with this ``much simpler'' approach is that it is
in fact ``much more complex'' implementation-wise; it requires:
- the promotion automation program
- fixing the BTS to tie bugs to versions (so that the program
can know that the bug is on the ``unstable'' version, not on
the one in ``testing'')
It requires more code. If this code was around, _and_ if we can
still have multiple versions of a same package in unstable
which I think is a good idea anyway, then I'd be glad to vote
for this one.
[]s,
|alo
+----
--
I am Lalo of deB-org. You will be freed.
Resistance is futile.
http://www.webcom.com/lalo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp key in the web page
Debian GNU/Linux --- http://www.debian.org
Brazil of Darkness - http://www.webcom.com/lalo/BroDar
