Subject: Re: Binary package sets
To: Alistair Crooks <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/24/2001 11:48:59
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 12:28:08PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 09:51:35AM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> > But with a branch, you can have code different between branch and trunk.
> > This may be required if we want a 'stable' package line, only updated
> > for security fixes (e.g we update a package which depends on different things
> > in branch or trunk; or something in mk/* was changed which requires 2 version
> > of the Makefile).
which was my thought.
> how long it took us to do all of them. If you don't intend to update
> the branch like that, but rather leave it static, only updating
> packages for security fixes, fine, then it's not a problem. But I am
> absolutely positive that someone is going to pop up and say that they
> want kde2 on the stable branch, or the version of postfix that lets
> you update this or that, or squid or apache etc.
my thoughts were to _only_ do security updates or if someone is motivated
fix "it doesn't even compile" problems on the branch. If someone wants
kde2 or whatever, they'll just have to deal with -current pkgsrc.
that said, its more work that we can handle at the moment to just work on