Re: bo-updates packages
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> So, I think if somebody really wants to run some newer software
> (which isn't necessarily stable in our terms), then the choices are:
> 1. compile it from sources -- ugly, but workable. Even to the extent
> of making your own packages, which I gather youve done.
> 2. upgrade to the unstable package, and in the case of hamm, install
> enough of hamm to run it. This isn't actually that much;
> new ldso, libc6, new libc5 I think, and some libraries. With such
> a system, you can run libc6 binaries but compilation is done for
> libc5, etc. I have such a system and it works fine.
> (3. try to backport the package yourself.)
The right answer is 3.
Answer 2. is the wrong one.
Remember that we are now speaking of people who _cannot_ upgrade their
systems to hamm, because they are production machines, and/or their
sites have a policy to not install "unstable" software unless it's
Often these people are urged to get "latest" version of some important
software, for direct request or because of embedded dependency.
The problem with answer 3. is that it embeds answer 1., plus the load to
Therefore people goes for 1. and then complains because they lose the
advantage of using dpkg, and/or the encounters problems that had been
solved previously in the debian packages.
They feel that those are debian's fault.
We need very little to do offer 3. to our customers.
Most maintainers have a double boot machine (like me), or have a bo
machine on their net, and launching recompilation of latest packages
(after a small change in the changelog file) is a little waste of time
(and gives more benefits).
I remember of one developer who couldn't upgrade his only machine to
hamm; he could only help doing non-maintainer uploads of new packages.
Pay attention: nobody here is proposing to create a debian-1.4 libc5
based release! That would be a waste of energies. Only new packages and
security fixes should be libc5-recompiled, not everything.
Doing this, we will also establish a policy on _how_ should be handled
releases for stable. It's my opinion that we should never move directly
packages from unstable to stable, but in case recompile them on a
stable-based machine (we had plenty of bugs because of that).
| firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
> Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .