On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 10:30:07PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * dann frazier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060513 21:01]: > > On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 06:23:46AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Mmm. Do we really want the default for sid to be something that will maybe > > > never be going into etch ? > > > I think so; there is a class of users (myself included) who want to > > run/test the latest and greatest on some machines, and its nice when > > it automatically updates. Users that just want to run what will go > > into testing should, well, just run testing :) > > Well, actually, there are reasons for both decisions. I think that in > the end, it is more important to make building packages for etch easier. > Please remember, this is only for a limited time, and at that time, > we'll be quite busy with etch issues. And, BTW, kernel developers should > know when a new kernel arrives. :)
I think the plan is different. It is to have a double kernel in sid all the time, and only one in testing. I guess this second sid kernel could replace at least part of what is done currently in experimental, which would improve at least its auto-builder state. The experimental kernels hardly fullfill the definition of experimental nowaday. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
