* Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 17:16]: > Thinking about completely removing it leads me to a question about > the package removal proposed by Andreas Barth: having the suite of > packages in unstable and testing to differ *considerably*, is a good > or a bad think? Should it be encouraged, avoided, or just tolerated?
Well, personally, I'm a bit afraid of testing and unstable moving apart... for example, all developers use unstable rather than testing but we ship testing... if testing and unstable grow apart, this would be a problem. However, it's less of a problem with packages which are in unstable but not in testing. We recently discussed move checks for packages which we release, and the suggestion was to leave packages into unstable just like we do now, but require further checks before they move to testing for the first time. I think it's a good compromise because we give packages the chance to get tested and find users (by distributing them in unstable), but I am a bit worried about having such big differences between testing and unstable. But maybe that's just me. I know other people think about this differently. Well, one example: sometimes, a package is removed from testing because it's buggy, but it's left in unstable... in some cases this may be okay, but I think we should also check if those package should be removed from Debian altogether. Just removing them from testing is okay for the release, but doesn't solve the whole problem. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
