[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: etch or later?

Thomas Walter schrieb am Samstag, den 17. Juni 2006:

> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 20:19, Micha Lenk wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> So, what prevents recompiling this package with a newer version of gcj?
That you will need a newer libgcc then, and thats bad bad bad, there are
several discussions about that problem, for example on the DCCA mailinglist. 
Several people that this is a no-go. So please trust them.


> > 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... :-)
> > 
> When backports come alive officially, I hoped, the goal was to organize
> the "wild backports".
> And to have the major gap to much more recent SW versions closed.
> Having a stable release which makes mostly only full time sys admins
> happy, the server does not crash and they don't care much about end user
> whishes as long as "their" system does not crash.
> I speak here from real life in my job.  There trhe admins also make
> stone old "stable" SW releases available for end users which makes me
> crazy.  I know there is an improved (bug fixes, new features) version
> which would help a lot to save time of making work arounds to achieve
> the goal.
> OK, these new versions may have other bugs, but that's life.
No, our goal is to be as stable as possible. It may be acceptable to you, but
not tu us running bpo, we are no apt-get.org. 

> And finally, look at the latest Debian Weekly News where Joey Hess
> reports about Debian being a "supermarket".
> I think this goes exactly in the same direction.  Debian Stable makes
> sys admins happy but no one else.
> If Debian wants to get accepted by end users using single/two user
> computers, scientists, ..., then Debian has to deliver SW much more neer
> to the bleeding edge.  This SW may have the one or other bug, but much
> more bugs are closed and the usage, usability and usefulnes is also
> improved.
We are creating an operating system we want to use. We don't wan't
marketshare. We want to create the best and most stable OS in the world. Not
a bunch of shit like other distributions, that are unstable like hell, have
unstable drivers, or software that crashes every 5 minutes. 

> Finaly,
> it is really interesting to see that these kinds of improvement/change
> requests pops up once per year  8-))).
> And are also rejected once per year  8-(((.
Yeah, the same trolls without a clue every year....


Reply to: