Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch status on debian

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 03:29:51PM +0100, wave++ said

    >> Shouldn't debian "unstable" carry on the "unstable" tla package
    >> instead of the (IMHO) obsolete 1.0?

Yes.  What are you waiting for?  From a standing start you could
probably upload your first release in a week.  ;-)

As far as I know the issue here is purely that Andrew is buried in
work and unwilling to pretend to maintain a package that he can only
update at random, long intervals.  However, for those who wish to
track the head with dpkg instead of Arch, he provides a snapshot
series from his own site.  If somebody qualified as a Debian
maintainer would step up, I'm sure he can spare enough time to join a
standing ovation....

>>>>> "Rob" == Rob Weir <address@hidden> writes:

    Rob> "snapshot" packages should go into the experimental
    Rob> distribution of Debian, not unstable.

Huh?  That's a silly way to look at it.  The line of development of
tla that is expected to be stable when Debian unstable goes into
testing should be in Debian unstable.  That ain't 1.0.  Current form
of distribution is irrelevant.

    Rob> Daily snapshots of tla are available from here, however:

    Rob> deb http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/arch/ ./

Obviously cron-generated packages shouldn't go into the distribution.
But that doesn't mean that the same source base, if vetted by a human,
shouldn't.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.