Re: potato late, goals for woody (IMHO)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: potato late, goals for woody (IMHO)
- From: Filip Van Raemdonck <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 17:28:19 +0200
- Message-id: <20000502172819.E7743@xs4all.nl>
- In-reply-to: <20000430124317.A22486@brown.edu>; from Daniel_Burrows@brown.edu on Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 12:43:17PM -0400
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20000430124317.A22486@brown.edu>
On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 12:43:17PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 09:09:37AM -0700, Kenneth Scharf <email@example.com> was heard to say:
> > I think debian should try to release more often with
> > smaller goals. What I sometimes do is to upgrade
> > packages that I use from source if I really need the
> > latest and a .deb does not exist. True I can grab a
> > package from unstable, but many times unstable is
> > already using a newer libc or something and I DON'T
> > WANT to upgrade to the latest libs and risk breaking
> > everything else. We need a side directory with
> > "unstable" versions of newer packages for the current
> > "stable" release.
> One way around this is to point your binary apt line at stable, but your
> source apt line at unstable, so stuff you build from source is up-to-date.
> (things like changes in policy might cause difficulty here, though)
Which has become virtually impossible since about november.
I have been compiling 'unstable' packages for a long time (I even used to
compile potato packages on hamm in slink freeze), on 'stable' systems, but
the last half year it has been nearly impossible to do so because lots of
things just wouldn't compile anymore (on slink), because of either libraries
being too much obsoleted versions or build tools (debian tools or regular
tools) which were too old.