Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree
On Mon 30 Mar, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
> > Sorry but I disagree. I believe the final 2.0 release will go out with a
> > 2.0.x kernel not 2.1.x or 2.2.x and so the tree should not contain
> > packages which rely on a 2.1.x kernel as they are as experimental as
> > the features in the kernel they rely on.
> > I still see this as a bug in the frozen distribution but as I said
> > I'm not sure the correct way to approach it. If you can think of
> > a better way I'll take your advice.
> But there are lots of people using a stable (or even a frozen or
> unstable) Debian system and running a 2.1.x development kernel. We
> can't leave them out in the cold.
So they can grab the bits from unstable they need. I still do that when
I'm running stable boxes but just need a couple of extra bleeding-edge
> Before I released my smbfsx and ncpfsx I got tired of seeing messages
> in debian-user like "I can't use ncpfs or smbfs in my Debian box
> running a 2.1.x kernel". Then I decided to package the 2.1.x versions.
At the time unstable was hamm and so that's where they went.
Now hamm is frozen and will be stable and I don't think these packages
belong anymore. I'd like to see them in unstable (slink) only.
> I don't see your point: we provide both the stable versions (ncpfs and
> smbfs) and the unstable or development versions (ncpfsx and smbfsx).
> If you want a stable system the run a stable kernel and the stable
> userland utilities. If you want to be on the bleeding edge then run an
> unstable kernel and the corresponding userland utilities. The
> important thing is that you get to choose _and_ you are given both
> stable and unstable options.
But should they both be in the stable release?
> > Another example of this is the apache version which should go
> > in the 2.0 release should be 1.2.x not 1.3.x as it is the stable
> > version.
> Here I agree: a 1.2.x (stable) version should be available for those
> people not willing to be Guinea pigs.
Again I'd like to see 1.3.x moved to unstable and a 1.2.x in frozen.
> > I do have another machine here running 2.1.x and the smbfsx stuff looks
> > very stable and the packaging seems fine so I'm not critising your work.
> No problem, I never thought that you were critising my packages :-)
> So, I really don't know. I like the approach of having the chance to
> choose. I would like to see Hamm out without support for the new
> kernels. What would you recommend?
My policy would be that the 2.0 release only contains packages which are
stable and work with a stable 2.0.x kernel all other packages are moved
to unstable where the user can choose if they want them or not by grabing
This also keeps the distribution as small as possible for the user who
want a stable system.
But then I'm just a user and this is someone elses choice.
Scott Ashcroft email@example.com
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com