Fabian Bornschein <[email protected]> on Fri, 2025/11/07 16:04: > Is this also supposed to replace {gnome,kde}-unstable? I have a hard > time imagine how testing this should be done if multiple packages are > in alpha/beta that might even depend on each other in some way.
This is to be discussed, but I think I would tend to keep it separated.
Someone who wants to test rc releases of systemd or util-linux is not
necessarily in search for trouble with unstable gnome. :-p
Though someone could enable [core-unstable], but skip [extra-unstable]...
> To be clear - Most of the time I consider gnome-unstable completely
> broken. Just a dumping ground for new pre-releases and for users who
> deal themself with this mess until it becomes more reliable. 😂️ I'd
> like to keep it this way.
I have not tested anything from these repositories... Can't tell.
> Would -unstable depend on core- and extra-testing or on the "stable"
> repos?
At least my packages would be in a state the having stable und unstable, but
skipping testing, would be just fine.
--
main(a){char*c=/* Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH"
"CX:;",b;for(a/* Best regards my address: */=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/* Chris cc -ox -xc - && ./x */b/42*2-3)*42);}
pgpsBWshLmF3J.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
