On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 02:59:59PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I'm more worried about how you choose the environment you want to > dist-upgrade. Various criteria that come to my mind (braindump): > - base system only (pro: easy to set up, cons: tests a too small set of > package) > - \forall task, base system + 1 task (pro: still easy to set up, tests a > lot more packages, I guess all tasks taken together are a fair share > of the packages in the archive, cons: do not upgrade issues induced by > inter-task relationships) > - base system + a set of random selected packages (pro: easy to set up, > tests inter-task issues, cons: non-idempotent, i.e. not easy to > reproduce, no guarantees/idea about how much of the testing domain has > been effectively tested)
- base system + all optional packages (which under policy are supposed to be co-installable). This isn't going to give a small set of package removals, but if done repeatedly over time one thing it allows is to review each delta in the list of package removals *as it happens*, and evaluate whether it's reasonable, rather than trying to fix these problems all at the end of the release cycle. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
