[cut-team] lightweight rolling alternative

[Joey Hess]

Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> This would suffer from the same problems that you identified
> in http://lists.debian.org/20100908151433.GA1648@gnu.kitenet.net (except
> for the pinning that would not be required), no?

It would not have backports's problem where you don't want users to
accidentially install *all* available backports, with the follow-on
upgrade problem. Here we would want users to install any/all packages
from the cut-extras repository, as combined with the cut, they would
form a coherent, tested whole. d-i would need to auto-enable the
repository in sources.list, unlike with backports it could do so if
suite =~ /cut-.*/ without asking the user.

> For this specific problem of missing packages in testing due to
> unsupportability of a given upstream version for a period of 2 years
> or more, I would like to sugggest that we're addressing the problem at the
> wrong level with additional suites. What about accepting them in stable
> but letting users know of the additional constraints ("might change with
> new upstream version during the release's lifetime") and letting them
> configure APT to accept or not packages marked as "volatile" or
> "security-with-new-upstream"? (this APT feature doesn't exist yet)

Someone posted some similar thoughts to -release today about using
volatile for such packages, and I mostly agree with them. Not having
to use a plethora of little suites for this would be nice.

-- 
see shy jo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/cut-team/attachments/20100909/38f4975f/attachment-0001.pgp>