On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 06:02:19PM +0200, Tobias Toedter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm thinking about building one of my packages with a new feature enabled and > would therefore prefer to upload to experimental instead of unstable. > > However, although I looked into the Developer's Reference and into Policy, I > could not find an answer to the following question. Since experimental is not > a full distribution, how should packages be built for experimental? Should I > use pbuilder with unstable, but upload to experimental? That would have the > advantage that users willing to test the new package can just install the > package into their unstable distribution, without needing to pull in > libraries which might have a newer version in experimental. > > The other option would be of course to use pbuilder with experimental and > upload to experimental, so that the package gets linked with available > experimental libraries as well -- that seems to be the cleaner approach to > me. > > How are other people handling this?
What I usually do is that I build my experimental packages against unstable, except if they *need* versions of some packages from experimental, in which case I take these. For example, current xulrunner in experimental is built against unstable build dependencies ; earlier, it needed cairo from experimental, in which case that was the only package from experimental I used at build time. Current iceweasel in experimental requires xulrunner from experimental, so, obviously, I build against it ;) Cheers, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
