Le Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 04:10:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns �crivait: > Anyway, the point of setting up a separate area as Brendan has is that > it gives you somewhere to mess around with things, without having to > commit to maintaining them in any particular way, or to worry about > people who aren't interested in helping you out getting irritated and > filing bugs. Basically it seems to have the exact benefits of having > "gnome2-*" packages, without the problem of having to rename them all > at some later date. > > (Using experimental's possible too; although people can't just add it > to their sources.list and get the new Gnome with a dist-upgrade, so it > can be more awkward. The only loss compared to using unstable is that > your packages won't get autobuilt on non-i386 until they are uploaded > to unstable, but you don't get a choice about that anyway, and since > your changes aren't arch-specific, that's unlikely to matter at all) > > If it were me, I'd setup a gnome2 repository, copied from Brendan's > scripts, package bunches of Gnome2, and then see how much people really > hate losing their settings and work on fixing it somewhat, or notice that > people don't really care that much, and just move the packages straight > into unstable.
This is exactly what I proposed as solution 3 in my initial mail to the technical committee. Disadvantages are : - the BTS should not be used to report bugs because the staging area is not something official - some package uploaded to unstable may be built on a Gnome2 system and depend on a package of the staging area ... this is a pretty common mistake when you have a big and popular staging area - not autobuilt as you mentionned Anyway, it may well be the best compromise ... a volunteer to maintain the staging area if we go on with that solution ? Cheer, -- Rapha�l Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/ Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
