Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1
Norbert Tretkowski <tretkowski@inittab.de> wrote:
[...]
> Unfortunately Adrian didn't wrote why he thinks backports aren't
> usable for production systems. The only real problem with backports I
> see is that there are no guaranted security updates.
[...]
Imho the real potential for problems with backports is mixing
different ones. E.g. backports A, B and C require a backported
libfoo2c102 (woody only has the the API incompatible libfoo1) and each
of them uses a different solution:
* A has undone the c102 transition properly and ships a libfoo2.
* B uses a backport of gcc 3.2 and has simply done a normal backport
by decreasing the version-number and compiling with the g++-3.2 (The
resulting library of course depends on the backported gcc-3.2 libstc++)
* C has produced a broken backport, he has compiled libfoo2c102 with
gcc-2.95.
Mixing any two of A, B and C will fail because of Conflicts/Replaces.
I have not tested it, but AFAIK it is e.g. not possible to use
Gnome-2.2 and KDE-3 backports at the same time.
cu andreas
--
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_
http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~ametzler/debian/tin-snapshot/
Reply to: