On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:03:57AM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:44:42PM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > >> it's a bit different and for different arches. What about the arches > >> `all'? Well, I'm maybe a particular case: powerpc + java ;) but it > >> could be the same with sparc + perl or else. Where can I have more > >> information about experimental? > > > > Hmm... I am not quite sure I understand you. Can you explain more? > > I don't know how to write a sources.list line for architecture `all'.
Just as for sid and sarge and potato, you do not need a special line for
Arch: all packages; they are referenced from the Packages file for every
architecture.
> Am I correct if I say that it will not take more place than now, but
> only the Packages and Sources files will change?
Yes, only the Packages and Sources files will increase in size, but, as
Henning says, even this is not a good idea.
> > But indeed, the same affect can be accomplished by using APT's
> > preferences file.
>
> Yes, it's me not able to deal with the experimental apt/sources.list
> configuration and not able to configure apt correctly. Is it only me or
> maybe a better documentation about it could be a good thing?
No, I also feel that documentation about using is experimental is spread
out and hard to come by.
I think maybe many problems with using experimental as a playground for
development packages could be remedied by creating a central document
about it. Things to include might be:
* sources.lists lines
* using APT's preferences to pin packages from experimental
* how to build packages in experimental for arches that are missing
(since there are not buildds)
* anything else?
--
gram
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
