Subject: Re: buzz-fixed - it is essential; how do we make it ?

From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:38:46 +0200 (MET DST)

You (Lars Wirzenius) wrote:
> Ian Jackson:
> > I'm absolutely convinced that we need a `buzz-fixed' directory, to
> > which Debian-1.1.<patchlevel> and stable are made to point.
> 
> I'm happy if we can get one soon.

I am happy it's getting there. Until now I have been moving a few packages
into buzz-fixes on my own, it would be great if this could be automated
(also the creation of the Packages and Contents file). However nobody has
contacted me about this and I don't know who to talk to so...

> I'm not sure I understood what you meant.  Let me paraphrase what I
> think you might have meant, and you'll correct me:
> 
> 	1. Create buzz-fixed as a symlink copy of buzz.
> 	2. When a package is released that must go into buzz-fixes,
> 	   a symlink to it also goes to buzz-fixed.
> 	3. Rebuild buzz-fixes/Packages and buzz-fixed/Packages.  
> 	
> Nothing changes under buzz, right?

That's the idea.

> Actually, I'm not sure we need buzz-fixes/Packages, but if we do, shouldn't
> it be identical to buzz-fixed/Packages?

I don't thinks so - the contents of "fixes" and "fixed" differ.

> If I'm right, I don't think I have anything to complain about, except
> that the name difference buzz-fixes and buzz-fixed is too small; perhaps
> buzz-fixes and buzz-better would be better names?  (I think we already
> have buzz-fixes, although my mirror is still downloading.)

That is a good idea, though it's not too late yet to rename "buzz-fixes"
to "buzz-upgrades" and use the name "buzz-fixed". Or we could use
"buzz-bugfixed". It sounds nice ;) Actually I think that's what I prefer..

Mike.
-- 
  Miquel van    | Cistron Internet Services   --    Alphen aan den Rijn.
  Smoorenburg,  | mailto:[email-masked]          http://www.cistron.nl/
[email-masked] | Tel: +31-172-419445 (Voice) 430979 (Fax) 442580 (Data)

---

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 01 Jul 1996 09:52:00 +0200

> Nothing changes under buzz, right?

Either this, or - to placate people who don't want to ship known-broken  
stuff - we might remove the broken packages from buzz (optionally  
replacing them with a README).

(The scripts on master could just move these packages to a "hidden"  
directory, just in case something went wrong and we want to restore the  
old state. However, keeping a backup or a CD of the original unchanged 1.1  
would be just as good, I guess.)

MfG Kai