On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 11:41:02AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Not only you, Jerome and me were suggesting it in the past. However I am
> afraid that the whole package movement machinery would have to be
> rewritten to allow independent handling of the version in different
> "testing" threes, plus
#include
* Björn Stenberg [Thu, May 15 2003, 01:18:57AM]:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > So let me make the following modest strawman proposal. Let us posit
> > the existence of a new distribution, which for now I'll name
> > "testing-x86".
>
> I suggested the same thing a few weeks ago, with little
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> So let me make the following modest strawman proposal. Let us posit
> the existence of a new distribution, which for now I'll name
> "testing-x86".
I suggested the same thing a few weeks ago, with little reaction. Nice to see
someone else got the same idea.
I'd volunteer t
On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 09:14, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I've solved the problem for myself by just simply biting the bullet
> and using unstable. I either have gotten lucky, or maintainers of
> core packages have gotten much more careful about testing their
> packages before uploading, so I haven't g
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:22:05PM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
> I care about security in testing, and I believe others do too. But I
> don't think the process should be the same as with stable releases.
> Testing should not become another psudo stable distributionit's for
> testing. So
5 matches
Mail list logo
