On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 10:16:12AM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 04:17:04PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 at 19:11:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > I also reworded the paragraph about backports to hopefully address > > > Holger's reading. It's just trying to say that backports uses aptitude in > > > the normal way and doesn't do anything special to transform the > > > alternative. > > yup, it's better, thanks. > > > It's perhaps worth mentioning that experimental does something similar > > (it has used the aptitude and aspcud resolvers at various times, but > > I'm not sure which one is currently in use). > > I see. > > I think my biggest concern is actually not how it's described but rather > why/that it is different at all (and then wondering whether it will stay > that way...)
Experimental is different because it is an incomplete distribution, which needs to default to using packages from unstable except if build-depends explicitly lists versions that are only available in experimental. When I set up the first experimental autobuilder back in the day, I hacked the sbuild resolver (it had its own resolver at the time) to explicitly tell apt which packages to pull from experimental, rather than doing something like "-t experimental" or some such. I wrote https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/04/msg00007.html to -devel-announce at the time; but since I haven't been involved with buildd work in a while, I can't really say whether it's still accurate or relevant today. -- w@uter.{be,co.za} wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org} I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.