On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:06:41 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > Most of what could be called "Alternatives" in my case (as well as other > repos) is upgraded or rebuild software to support parts of what one > would call "Extras". Therefore at the end of the day Extras would > require Alternatives. Extras should at most depend on Core, but not on Alternatives. As soon as you update software which is in Core or Extras, you don't play well with the current scheme, and all your software would be "Testing Alternatives". > Or if any Extra package requiring an > Alternatives package would have to be moved to Alternatives, I could > go right away and call all the repo "alternative". Yep. Because packages upgrades create an alternative stream compared with official Core and Extras. > That design is obvously flawed. ;) Why? Do any of your packages in "stable" depend on "testing"? If the answer is "yes", you know what is flawed. > I would redesign the splitting. What people are really interested in > are stability criterions. That is why they would not want to replace > FC components in the first place. I think Debian's model would apply > good here. "Extras" will have a development stream, too, I think. --
Attachment:
pgpI7OAwVOGuW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
