alan buckley wrote: > > I think we should use John Tygat's suggestion of providing some other > distributions at riscos.info. I'm going to look into at least adding an > unstable distribution initially. This will be built by hand copying specific > versions from the autobuilt distribution and then generating its > webpages and package index.
I don't recall exactly what John said, but firstly, let's not fragment and spread ourselves too thinly. We don't have hundreds or thousands of developers like Debian to look after different variations of packages not any particular reason to do so. Nor should we provide user confusion by naming things "unstable", with the ensuing explanations that'll be required. All we'll do in the end is ensure that such named software won't get tested. The best anyone can ask or we can provide is a single distribution on a best effort basis. There might be older versions of software in that distribution, but that's ok too. As for manual intervention, let's avoid that too, it'll just mean more manual effort later. If we can come up with more generic ways of doing things, even if the initial result takes longer, that'll be better for everyone. hth. _______________________________________________ GCCSDK mailing list [email protected] Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
