Hi Felipe,
thanks for your bug reports.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
> sources.list.unstable points to testing, but s.l.UNRELEASED points to
> unstable.
I confirm that it might be a bit unusual to use something else for
UNRELEASED than if you do the final upload to unstable. However, there
was some request for having one sources.list.xxx that also points to
unstable. Do you think this is a real constraint? Finally it is a
config file you can change if needed. If you insist that it should be
testing, could you suggest some name that really uses unstable?
> The rationale for testing looks sane,
Yes, definitely. We need to build the package against testing if it
finally should reach testing.
> so I think UNRELEASED should point to testing too.
As I said: Please make some suggestion under what "distribution" you
like to see metapackages that are faking to target unstable.
Kind regards
Andreas.
PS: Thanks also for your other bug report and specifically the patch.
I'll upload tomorrow.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
