Re: etch or later?
Sylvain Beucler schrieb:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:28:47PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
Sylvain Beucler wrote:
When I needed to install OOo2.0.2 [...]
Again, ooo is a special case in any situation. Don't use exceptions to
consolidate your argumentation.
Again, we're the only distro that can't provide 2.0.2. I also wonder
what makes it an exception.
There is a reason why OpenOffice 2.0.2 isn't in testing yet: Have a look
at http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=openoffice.org for a
quick impression what prevents it from entering Etch. If you want
OpenOffice 2.0.2 to enter Etch faster dig into the details and help
fixing the bugs.
Here are other examples:
* 1.3.3 released 16 May 2006
* accepted in unstable 25 May 2006
* migrated to testing 6 June 2006
* uploaded to backports 7 June 2006
* but 1.3.4 released 10 June 2006
so we're about ~1 release / 1 month late
Do we prefer a bleeding edge system having every software at the latest
blinky release or a sound, well tested and stable system? AFAIK Debian
aims for the latter. And I appreciate it for this attitude.
Nevertheless I think it's very nice to have backports.org providing
newer packages as the current stable release gets older. Some years ago
we didn't even have backports.org... :-)
I don't blame backports or Debian or anybody in particular. I just
witness that however you try, there's no up-to-date .debs for Sarge
while other distros do -- so exceptions or not, there is a problem to
solve. Generalizing backports.org is one way, and I would welcome
other suggestions to get rid of delays :)
I fear you can't get rid of delays without loosing the current level of
quality too. Quality work simply needs time.
If Debian adopts new software releases to slow, well, nobody forces you
to stick with the officially supported packages nor with packages from
Backports.org. You can simply look for unofficial APT repositories or
even build your own and register it at apt-get.org and announcing it for
the public. You wouldn't be the first. :-)