Re: Neat gtk/gdk-imlib pain
- To: Jim Pick <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Neat gtk/gdk-imlib pain
- From: "Ean R . Schuessler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:29:47 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] 19990301132947.L23262@boof.novare.net>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>; from Jim Pick on Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 01:51:52PM -0800
- References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990201164646.9007F-100000@wakko> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <19990202135952.C634@recursive.prestel.co.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 01:51:52PM -0800, Jim Pick wrote:
> > Why not make sure all gnome libs and apps are reasonably compatible with
> > each other (all apps being compiled against the same libs), before being
> > put into the main archive? As it stands now you have some libs which are
> > updated more often than the apps (or other linked libs) can be recompiled
> > against the new versions. Perhaps setting up an announce list for gnome
> > packagers to inform them that they should recompile their packages against
> > the new version.
> That's not a bad idea. Although I don't think the problem is that the
> users of the imlib/gnome libraries are unaware of the new libraries -
> rather, they don't have enough time to be constantly
> updating/recompiling their packages.
> Part of the reason we call the devel branch of Debian 'unstable' is
> because we do things like upload libraries that may break other
> things. It would be nicer if we didn't have to -- but that's life.
> There is a limit to the amount of 'pain' the developers are willing to
> endure, of course.
I know painfully little about the complexities of managing dynamic
libraries and the detection of their incompatibilities so forgive
this ignorant intrusion. Listening to this conversation, however,
makes me think about some conversations regarding the "unstable"
distribution. Would it be more practical to have a staging
distribution that actually proceeds "unstable"? Truthfully, unstable
is _so_ unstable that it is often unusable. On the other hand, stable
is too important to casually move anything into. This seems to
suggest a place for an intermediate role. Something like:
unstable packages moved in immediatly from incoming. might work,
probably doesn't. you should definatly know what you are
doing if you are installing packages from here.
usable packages are moved into usable selectively from the
unstable dist. packages are moved in groups when it is
widely rumored that they seem to be working togethor.
While this is not a "stable" distribution per se, it is
likely that a well prepared developer can aim apt at the
distribution and upgrade regularly without undue suffering.
stable the last stabilized, frozen, checked, certified and
Alternatively, "unstable" could be called "incoming" and "usable"
called "unstable" to reduce the mirroring headaches.
Ean Schuessler Director of New Products and Technologies
Novare International Inc. The Unstoppable Fist of Digital Action
*** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.