On 2004-05-18 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > (OK, so let's try out replying via the mailing-lists links. Sorry if
> > this turns out bad)
> >
> > Matthias Klose writes:
> >
> > > hmm, upload a new gcc-defaults to experimental making 3.4 the default
> > > definitely breaks gnome builds in experimental, if you get your build
> > > dependencies from there. an experimental/toolchain would help in this
> > > case.
> >
> > Perhaps one can assume that all essential and build-essential packages
> > should be from unstable, while the build-dependencies are taken from
> > experimental?
> If that's the idea, why would you ever upload a compiler to
> experimental?
experimental is no distribution, it is a heap of package(-group)s
without connection. An autobuilder packages for experimenatal should
not pull every availabale package from experimental but stick with sid
except for explicitely (Build-Depends?) specified packages.
cu andreas
--
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
