On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 10:17:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Hello world,
So, on -devel-announce, I mentioned:
* New testing distribution
[...]
So some more details.
The way testing is supposed to work is to have three distributions at
any one time: a stable tree, a testing tree, and
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's beautiful. I want it now. :-)
I couldn't agree more.
We could always fine tune it when we know how it works with live
data. But I think you'right. Some way of chrash-install into testing
would be nice when dealing with root-exploits.
--
Peter
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 10:17:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Automated Process?
~~
So pretty much all the policy is encoded in some automated process
which updates testing. It works at the moment, basically as follows:
1. First, it loads up all the Sources and
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 10:34:35AM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
I'd just like to bring up the only point which really worries me about
all this... what is the incentive for people to run their machines on
'unstable'?
Because a package lying for 3 weeks in unstable says nothing about it
being
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 09:26:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Another reason to run unstable is to live on the actual bleeding edge:
testing will always be around two weeks out of date. That can be a fair
while, if you're impatient.
Supporting this, there's some Apt changes in CVS that'll
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd just like to bring up the only point which really worries me about
all this... what is the incentive for people to run their machines on
'unstable'?
I for one like the bleeding-edge. I like stuff that breaks, because I get to
fix it. I like filing bug
On 18-Aug-00, 06:26 (CDT), Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Supporting this, there's some Apt changes in CVS that'll let people choose
a few packages from one distribution and leave the rest from another.
To whoever implemented this feature: ThankyouThankyouThankyou -- it's
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Edward Betts wrote:
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd just like to bring up the only point which really worries me about
all this... what is the incentive for people to run their machines on
'unstable'?
I for one like the bleeding-edge. I like stuff that
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 10:34:35AM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
I'd just like to bring up the only point which really worries me about
all this... what is the incentive for people to run their machines on
'unstable'?
In my case curiosity to test new stuff without having to deal with
the other
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Another reason to run unstable is to live on the actual bleeding edge:
testing will always be around two weeks out of date. That can be a fair
while, if you're impatient.
At best. Please remember there are some maintainers that will have to
I'd just like to bring up the only point which really worries me about
all this... what is the incentive for people to run their machines on
'unstable'?
I don't know - how many people are running glibc 2.1.92 now? How about X
4.0? GNAT 3.13? I'm running two out the three, because I'm too
Hello world,
So, on -devel-announce, I mentioned:
* New testing distribution
This is a (mostly finished) project that will allow us
to test out distribution by making it sludgey rather
than frozen: that is, a new distribution is added between
12 matches
Mail list logo
