Re: Debian 2.2 Release.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Oh, I get it :) keep the -system- stable, but break the apps :) The apps
> > won't break the system... so let's introduce instability and distrust
> > in the apps in the name of having the newest thing.
> Old apps have *more* bugs than new one. Some of them *much* *more*.
> Upstream do *more*, *much* *more* bugfixes that Debian.
Bzzrt, wrong. When will you ever stop making these blatantly
incorrect overgenerilzations and being to look at reason?
As an example. I maintain modemu, which was last modified in 1995.
There are no bugs open against it, and the last open one was closed in
1998. I also maintain lincity, which has onle one bug -- a wishlist
-- open against it. There are countless examples of this.
> Will you claim than potato mozilla is less buggy than woody mozilla ???
As it happens, the latest mozilla will not run unless it is run by
root at least once. It cannot even be packaged! This is a bug that
you would not have detected.
> Will you claim than potato freeciv is less buggy than woody freeciv ???
Yes, freeciv in potato works quite well.
> If it needs much integrating, we can leave it for a while.
> If it can work with existing Debian, and there is new STABLE,
> we can upgrade it.
OK, but that's not what you're saying. You're saying we should insert
it into stable or frozen without sufficient testing. By all means
upgrade it in unstable, but get off this stupid soapbox about
decreasing the quality of our dist.
John Goerzen <email@example.com> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h> <firstname.lastname@example.org>