Re: Upcoming Debian Releases [auto-post]
bcwhite@verisim.com (Brian C. White) wrote on 19.11.96 in <329213A6.75E687F5@verisim.com>:
> There are not critical bugs open against X. Since it has been decided
> that rex would ship with the older X, and this bug won't get patched
> because it is already fixed in the newer version, I don't see the point
> of making it critical. It would accomplish nothing but push the 1.2
> release a couple months.
And we can always - after testing - put 3.2 into rex-fixed, can't we?
> "stable" is supposed to be a solid, working system. If people want
> the latest & greates, then they can use "unstable". Hmmm... perhaps
> it might be an idea to rename "unstable" to "latest"? I've always
> found that "unstable" gave the wrong impression since it tends to
> be very stable.
I think "latest" would do exactly what we want to avoid.
Just imagine lots of CDs containing latest instead of stable ... this has
happened once already, with the less catchy name "Debian-1.0".
> > Why does it involve all packages using X? Will the current packages
> > (that are not part of X itself) stop working with the new X? That would
> > be very bad for compatibility - for example, how about packages we can't
> > recompile, like netscape? There has to be some way around it...
>
> That just means that all packages need to be tested with the new X. Only
> a few will need any changes.
Well, netscape runs :-)
Some packages seem to have bad xlib dependencies.
MfG Kai
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: