Excerpts from Christian PERRIER's message of Fre Aug 27 06:56:44 +0200 2010: > Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): > > Does it really make sense for users to use t-p-u? Anything can be > > uploaded there, rejected by the release team, and no upgrade path is > > necessarily provided for a system that installed a package from there > > and ends up tracking stable. > > Well, after thinking a little bit more, I wonder if the case of users > installing testing *and then* wanting to track stable is really what > we want to address here. And I also wonder whether that happens often > (that someone installs testing and then sticks to stable once the > testing (s)he installed has been released. > > I more see users who install testing as those users you want to > address with your CUT proposal, ie people who will always follow > testing. > > In such case, it then makes some sense to *not* use the release name > in sources.list. And, of course, the question of upgrade path to > stable is becoming less important. > > OTOH, not being able to guarantee an upgrade path from t-p-u to (the > next) stable is probably not a good idea if we want people to use > t-p-u (which was the original point of this discussion). Couldn't that > be turned into a requirement?
What's the rationale for adding t-p-u? IMO t-p-u is quite different from volatile or security as packages in these repositories are already intended for general use while packages in t-p-u still wait for approval by the release team. If they are approved they will end up in testing anyway and if they are not there is probably an issue with them which makes them unsuitable for general use. So I think it's better to not add t-p-u by default. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1282907191-sup-3...@meteor.durcheinandertal.local
