Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I agree with you. This is why I expect experimental to be autobuilt >> in order to easy the integration of such packages. > > And I think we should not create wrong, arbitary expectations > of current practice (like, do not upload code not known ready for > release into unstable), and sit back and expect other people to > change infrastructure.
I agree with you. I don't think unstable is for beta software. > Historical practice has been to only use Experimental for > unknown quality packages (like nightly CVS builds) if a stable > versions *of the same package* exists already. New packages go into > Sid. In this case, no emacs-cvs package exists; so it should go into > Sid, not experimental. OK, you are talking about the same package as 'the same package name'. > If you exoect Experimental to be autobuilt, please set up the > infrastructure, get it working, and then ask the ftp masters to > accept your set of maintained auto-builders as official providers > of packages for the other arches. If only I had such an infrastructure and bandwidth. Anthony has already mentioned that it shouldn't be that difficult to tell katie to autobuild experimental. But, I'm not going to pester him nor James. Cheers, -- J閞鬽e Marant http://marant.org
