On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:20:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > No, this may be not such a good idea after all. I don't think that a > maintainer who uploads something to the archives wouldn't want it to be > built if he had the choice, so most packages would be built anyway. > Giving people the option is silly, then.
It's quite reasonable to upload packages to experimental that are only ready to be built on a few architectures; the issue isn't so much the choice but who goes to the effort of building experimental packages, though. > Also, I don't see why you would want to manually specify what stuff to > take from unstable instead of experimental? Isn't build-depends meant > for that? I don't think it'd work without lots of effort -- selecting packages from a suite needs to be done explicitly rather than by a build-depends afaics; happy to be proven wrong though. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
