Blastwave.org

Blastwave.org

Post by UNIX admi » Fri, 05 Mar 2004 05:48:17



Why is pkg-get.conf pointing to the "unstable" tree by default?  And why do
the "unstable" packages have more dependencies than "stable"?

What is meant by "stable" and "unstable" here, since it doesn't appear to
have the same meaning in the classic sense?

I couldn't find any documentation on this on Blastwave.org.

 
 
 

Blastwave.org

Post by Thomas Glanzman » Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:14:09


Hi,

Quote:> Why is pkg-get.conf pointing to the "unstable" tree by default?  And
> why do the "unstable" packages have more dependencies than "stable"?

unstable is fine for most. And blastwave.org lacks at the moment a
stable maintainer (Phil does move packages from time to time to stable).

For my packages I can say that they have more dependecies because I am
'feature' guy (so samba has krb5 now and perl has gdbm) and so on.

Quote:> What is meant by "stable" and "unstable" here, since it doesn't appear
> to have the same meaning in the classic sense?

Everything that had no open bug for two months (I think) is moved to
stable.

Quote:> I couldn't find any documentation on this on Blastwave.org.

There is none yet.

        Thomas

 
 
 

Blastwave.org

Post by Dennis Clark » Mon, 08 Mar 2004 02:27:49



>Everything that had no open bug for two months (I think) is moved to
>stable.

>> I couldn't find any documentation on this on Blastwave.org.

>There is none yet.

>    Thomas

Good point.  I'll look into getting a firm definition and then creating the
docs page.

Dennis Clarke               Director and Admin for Blastwave.org
                               Home of Community Software Packages

 
 
 

Blastwave.org

Post by Phil Brow » Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:39:58



> Why is pkg-get.conf pointing to the "unstable" tree by default?  And why do
> the "unstable" packages have more dependencies than "stable"?

because the "unstable" packages are newer packages, and thus are aware of
other, newer packages that have become part of blastwave since the older
package was made.

Quote:> What is meant by "stable" and "unstable" here, since it doesn't appear to
> have the same meaning in the classic sense?

It follows from the Debian definitions of "stable" and "unstable"

Quote:> I couldn't find any documentation on this on Blastwave.org.

No?
Hmmm. I guess it isnt in our "UserGuide".
People are encouraged to use "unstable" on our mirrors page
( http://www.blastwave.org/mirrors.php ), but I guess it could use some
more explaination.

Hopefully, it is clearer now.

 
 
 

1. blastwave.org S.O.S.

The blastwave project might go under due to bandwidth costs. Blastwave
project director Dennis Clarke has looked for corporate sponsorship but
hasn't had much luck, it would be a real shame to see this project
disappear. You can help out by signing the user survey at:
    http://www.blastwave.org/survey/index.html
If you're a Solaris Admin who has never used blastwave, you'll want to
check it out. It makes open source software available as packages for
easy installation.

2. Red Hat Linux 7.1 and OpenSSH 3.4 patch level 1

3. mutt packages on blastwave.org updated to version 1.5.6

4. jumpstart archive image root disk on different controller

5. The Blastwave.org Software Distribution DVD Subscription Service

6. Where is vmlinuz actually

7. Mail lists now available at blastwave.org

8. Redirect stdin and stdout to a TCP connection

9. blastwave.org - offline package installation

10. Blastwave.org packages with insane dependencies

11. Software Distribution DVD from blastwave.org

12. Acquiring older versions of blastwave.org packages

13. blastwave.org now takes packaging requests