On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Felipe, > > thanks for your bug reports. > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> >> sources.list.unstable points to testing, but s.l.UNRELEASED points to >> unstable. > > I confirm that it might be a bit unusual to use something else for > UNRELEASED than if you do the final upload to unstable. However, there > was some request for having one sources.list.xxx that also points to > unstable. Do you think this is a real constraint?
I think I take back my comment about the rationale for testing, because I've just realized that metapackages use recommends by default, so they can't be entangled in any transition. So I guess I changed my mind to s.l.unstable should point to unstable. > Finally it is a > config file you can change if needed. I'd rather not. I find it weird that build configuration can live outside the package being built. > If you insist that it should be > testing, could you suggest some name that really uses unstable? > >> The rationale for testing looks sane, > > Yes, definitely. We need to build the package against testing if it > finally should reach testing. > >> so I think UNRELEASED should point to testing too. > > As I said: Please make some suggestion under what "distribution" you > like to see metapackages that are faking to target unstable. I change my mind, so I suggest targeting unstable should use the unstable keyword. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > PS: Thanks also for your other bug report and specifically the patch. > I'll upload tomorrow. Thanks for developing the tools. Making these metapackages was really easy. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caafdzj817rqzox7jmgyxcqadc+-9ccgarkzx1wbxd8hsxgh...@mail.gmail.com
