> I would like to use this suggestion. Comments? See my previous mail: I'd say the -Arch variants are unnecessary, but if everybody wants them for clearness of design, I won't oppose.
> Sounds good. Actually, that was what I had originally in mind. If > there are no objections, I'll make this part of my proposal > (seconders: I need your comments!). Ok with me. > > I think that texinfo shouldn't be there. > > Agreed. texinfo etc. were out of the games for a long time, I thought :-) > I see the point of this suggestion, but I'm not sure the wording is > wise. We can't expect to be able to compile the unstable > distribution while satisfying build dependencies with packages in > the stable distribution (think of Gnome in potato or a libc upgrade, > for example). I think you've mis-read Ian's statement here. He didn't say that source dependencies might be satisfied from stable only (this would indeed be nonsense). But a consequence is that the src-deps must be properly versioned so that the appropriate packages from unstable are installed. Roman
