On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 07:29:31PM +1000 , Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 11:05:49AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> > On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 06:42:33PM +1000 , Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > FWIW, I do all my development under testing. I virtually ignore unstable
> > > unless I need a specific package from it.
> > but autobuilders will still compile with unstable, so it's really useless
> > (even dangerous) to upload i386 build on woody, when autobuild packages are
> > unstable.
>
> That's not true at all. It's quite possible (although probably a little
> unlikely) to maintain your packages from a box running stable, if you like.
that depends. If I need libc6, X and gtk maybe, but you really loose on
apache, sablot (I need to kick the maintaner for the stupid shlibs, IMHO).
Or the ssl fiasco. I´ve had unstable package made uninstallable day after I
uploaded it with compiled latest unstable. Now, should I let the package
there - no, because mostly the new upload also deletes the one I compiled
with and so there is NO way to get that upload into testing
The same if, if I would compile with woody - it made the package
uninstallable on sid and I would have to pray that the hacked build-depends,
what were made according the status of woody, when I uploaded was still
valid when autobuilders get around to rebuild. Of course I loose unstable
for that. The result? The package is not in testing and not installable in
unstable
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<sgore> We Are Debian. You Will Be Packaged. Media Opinion Is Irrelevant.
