"J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 14:12:49 -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > try this hypothetical release method out:
> >
> > there are two trees. let's call them devel and production. debian saavy
> > folks (maintainers) run devel. new packages are uploaded to devel where
> >
J.H.M. Dassen Ray" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 14:12:49 -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > try this hypothetical release method out:
> >
> > there are two trees. let's call them devel and production. debian saavy
> > folks (maintainers) run devel. new packages are uploaded to d
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 11:02:31AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> ??? - packages auto moved to here after basic criteria met (e.g.
> in unstable for 2 weeks with no bug reports). can't remember
> what this stage was to be called.
i feel a need to write some more about
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:35:16PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 15:06:57 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > It wouldn't help with out and out buggy programs but at least it
> > would catch dependency problems.
>
> It would catch problems with the dependencies a package
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:56:05PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> >
> > the production branch should always work.
>
> But it won't. This approach ignores the fact that "stability" is a property
> of a release as a whole (the set of packages and their interdependencies,
> ISOs, boot floppies
i thought i send a reply to this but it doesn't seem to have made it to the
list. i'll try to remember what i typed.
J.H.M. Dassen Ray" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 14:12:49 -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > try this hypothetical release method out:
> >
> > there are two trees
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 15:22:04 -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> the main idea here is that the release cycle would be automated, and
> packages would be gradutated from one tree to the next. perhaps an
> intermediate tree needs to be included. i believe this idea has promise,
I believe it has some pr
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 15:06:57 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> A possibly naive question: apt-get will refuse to install packages if
> their dependencies aren't met. Why can't dinstall do the same?
It could do so.
> It wouldn't help with out and out buggy programs but at least it would
> catc
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 03:06:57PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
>
> > But it won't. This approach ignores the fact that "stability" is a property
> > of a release as a whole (the set of packages and their interdependencies,
> > ISOs, boot floppies
J.H.M. Dassen Ray" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 14:12:49 -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> >
> > the production branch should always work.
>
i was stating goals, not fact.
> But it won't. This approach ignores the fact that "stability" is a property
> of a release as a whole (
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> But it won't. This approach ignores the fact that "stability" is a property
> of a release as a whole (the set of packages and their interdependencies,
> ISOs, boot floppies and the upgrade path from the previous release) rather
> than the sum of t
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 14:12:49 -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> try this hypothetical release method out:
>
> there are two trees. let's call them devel and production. debian saavy
> folks (maintainers) run devel. new packages are uploaded to devel where
> they are tested extensivly. when a package
12 matches
Mail list logo
