On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:50:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:What that actually means is that when porters want to stabilise, they'll be able to simply stop autobuilding unstable, fix any remaining problems that are a major concern, and request a snapshot be done. That'll result That means that porters will have to do their own security and release work, rather than relying on the primary security and release teams.Would it also be possible for porters to update the snapshots in some manner beyond having an apt source equivalent to the security archive added by d-i?
It'd be possible, certainly -- cf proposed-updates and stable.
Whether it would happen would depend on how useful it is; you have to add security.d.o to your sources.list and download from it for stable releases anyway; and the expectation is that non-release arches don't stress as much about RC bugs and similar as release arches will, which means you should be able to do an Ubuntu and say (as they do for universe) "we'll release when we want, and if random packages are broken, well, wait a few months and cross your fingers :)".
How long snapshosts stay around, whether they're updated at all, or even automatically with testing-esque behaviour, or something else entirely, all depends on how useful they are, and thus how much effort's worth putting into them.
Feedback from porters on how these things could actually work usefully in real circumstances would be valuable here. Having a way of making snapshots is probably the minimal level of support we'd envisage, working out what that would actually achieve, and what benefits more support would actually bring would be interesting.
Cheers, aj
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
