In message <b821830c54.b...@ron1954.woosh.co.nz>
Ron <b...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
> In message <540c7aec44chr...@care4free.net>
> Chris Gransden <chr...@care4free.net> wrote:
>
> > The problem with standardising on 'stable' is what happens when the
> > current 'testing' becomes 'stable'. A whole load of packages will
> > then need updating. It's easier to keep them up to date gradually
> > instead of all in one hit.
> >
>
> That would be true if 'testing' was left empty at change over, but wont
> it be replaced from newer versions from the old 'unstable'?
>
Answering my own question,
I've had a look at a FAQ, and to quote:
"Changes might not be apparent at first but will be evident as soon as
new packages from unstable go over to the testing distribution."
So I'm guessing that unstable would continue to trickle into testing,
after the required wait in unstable of 10 days. So there wouldn't be any
more changes to 'testing' on the changeover day than on any other day.
_______________________________________________
GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info
Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi
List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc
Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
