OK, so is it better to keep the text or to remove it? We can also add a
disclaimer saying they're experimental. I also added info about them to
the Wiki. Let me know. Deferring to your judgement here, and will carry
out what you think is best.

Eric Voskuil:
> I see no problem with providing a link, as I do with the single file portable builds. These make console application trial/deployment trivial. The packages can do the same for developer usage.
>
> I strongly support packaging efforts. The issues I have with deeper integration presently are maintenance, consistency and quality (test automation). If the packages are not generated and automatically tested they are bound to have issues. There are 4 packaging environments that I know people are working on presently (Debian, Homebrew, MacPorts and NuGet).
>
> I would support maintaining them in the repos once we get to full automation. It's the same way we currently maintain the very high level of build quality. The current manual Debian packages are helpful as a step toward automation, which was discussed a while back.
>
> e
>
>> On Jun 19, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Police Terror <PoliceTerror@???> wrote:
>>
>> Yep, I made a mistake there. So can I update it? I think the packages
>> are great and we should get people using them because nobody likes
>> compiling and installing on Linux. If you have packages it increases
>> your install rate 10x, and encourages people to test the product. So we
>> should be promoting these as much as possible.
>>
>> Eric Voskuil:
>>> The readme updates refer to the packages as if they are master (e.g. there is no dynamic testnet in v2). As far as I know the packages are version2 only.
>>>
>>> Just as with the single file build link, I would prefer that package install instructions were referenced from the repo, not contained within it. This information is available on the unsystem site, which has control over the package sources.
>>>
>>> The current packages are experimental and meant as a preliminary step towards generated and CI tested packages in v3 or later.
>>>
>>> The unstable (master) branches change too quickly for packaging, especially without automation. Master is primarily for libbitcoin developers and secondarily for experimenters. The primary means of install should be install.sh. This is always current and is tested on every CI build, and it's at least as easy as using packages. Published packages should really be reserved for release branches.
>>>
>>> e
>>>
>>>> On Jun 19, 2016, at 2:53 PM, Police Terror <PoliceTerror@???> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I published your repos in the README, so people can test out new
>>>> features like the dynamic testnet support.
>>>>
>>>> Pablo Castellano:
>>>>> Sure, as soon as our time allows us!
>>>>>
>>>>>> El 17/06/16 a las 16:09, Police Terror escribió:
>>>>>> Amazing!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once version 3 is released, will the packages be updated?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will make full documentation of the libs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pablo Castellano:
>>>>>>> Hello all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been working in the latest months on the Debian packaging of the libbitcoin stack version 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Santi D3 has done a good work also helping me debugging the packages and setting up the repository online.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These packages are now available for Ubuntu Xenial (16.04) and Debian Jessie (8.0):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> libbitcoin0 2.11.0
>>>>>>> libbitcoin-blockchain 2.4.0
>>>>>>> libbitcoin-client 2.2.0
>>>>>>> libbitcoin-consensus 2.0.0
>>>>>>> libbitcoin-explorer 2.2.0
>>>>>>> libbitcoin-node 2.4.0
>>>>>>> libbitcoin-server 2.4.0
>>>>>>> libczmq3 3.0.2
>>>>>>> libczmqpp1 1.2.0
>>>>>>> libsecp256k1 4.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please note that they are experimental and help is welcome to improve them. We finally want to submit them all to the Debian
>>>>>>> official repositories.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://wiki.unsystem.net/en/index.php/Libbitcoin/Repositories
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apt-get install libbitcoin-server is now a reality!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is you valuate my work you can make donations to my wallet:
>>>>>>> 1KyWJUU5SiPiPnQDwaJ8ifVLFfnrYU1KbE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or to the libbitcoin wallet (as you can check at the bottom of libbitcoin.org):
>>>>>>> 38VEW9J1kHrEXacKYdkNhnF9Ntpctsf5ms
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We will vigorously appreciate them! It will encourage us to keep the work coming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Pablo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Libbitcoin mailing list
>>>>>>> Libbitcoin@???
>>>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Libbitcoin mailing list
>>>>>> Libbitcoin@???
>>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Libbitcoin mailing list
>>>> Libbitcoin@???
>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libbitcoin mailing list
>> Libbitcoin@???
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin