"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
[SNIP]
> > So anyway, given a package oriented view here I don't think we need a
> > special update stream for "unstable stuff". Sure, we can still have the
> > unstable stream as a "first front", but generally packages is what we
> > want and then things work out naturally (meaning the maintainers can
> > make their new releases available regardless of how stable they are
> > etc).
> 
> There is an important point ignored here: We need to release *sets* of
> packages.

:) No, I didn't ignore that. I was just saying that the need for an
unstable stream is much less in a package oriented world - because then
the package maintainer can release new releases without affecting people
that do not install those releases. And I am not saying anything about
how releases are combined or chosen for installation etc.

With a stream you don't have the choice - you will just have to either
don't load updates or eat all the food on the plate. *That* was my
point, nothing else. I did not talk about the issue of a coherent set of
packages - which we are all aware of - I was talking about the need of
an *unstable update stream*.

>  Check out the "Why Package Universes Exist" page on the swiki
> for a long ramble about it, but the idea is: packages are only reliable
> in the context of other packages.  This is because packages interact

You know that I know all this. :)

regards, Göran