On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 01:39:23AM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote: > On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Lalo Martins wrote: > > > Implementation: > > > > When the current Unstable (potato) is frozen, instead of > > creating a new Unstable area, we will create the Pool and > > populate it with a copy of potato; plus, create an empty Working > > area and wait for maintainers to start populating it; plus, > > Hm... this is an oversight, I believe. The new working area should be > populated by symlinks to the latest stable/frozen...
I don't think so. Let the maintainers decide what is ``working''. If they think that's the version in ``stable'', then they can easily make things that way. > > delete the "project/experimental" area. Of course the promotion > > automating software must be working and tested by then. > > I'm not quite sure about the need to remove the project/experimental > area... The working area wouldn't be updated quite as often as unstable is > currently, so I'd probably use apt on the pool... and I wouldn't want to > use apt on some software from the current project/experimental... > (For example I'd gladly follow the current NMU series of dpkg, while I'm > not so sure about the dpkg in project/experimental yet) Read the proposal again. What you said just defeats the whole point. You're not _supposed_ to run apt on pool unless you're willing to live on the edge. It would be equivalent to running apt on experimental. Perhaps we can implement the long-promised feature of apt to let the user choose one of many installable versions, so you _can_ run apt on pool and choose the version of your liking. But that's an entirely different point. In simple words: if you want safe stuff, ``working''. If you're willing to run risks, ``pool''. Period. []s, |alo +---- -- I am Lalo of deB-org. You will be freed. Resistance is futile. http://www.webcom.com/lalo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp key in the web page Debian GNU/Linux --- http://www.debian.org Brazil of Darkness - http://www.webcom.com/lalo/BroDar