>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net> writes: Thomas> James Troup <james@nocrew.org> writes: >> Is there a good reason why Debian is using CVS binutils (even in >> unstable)? I mean, it might be nice to have a little stability in our >> tool chain if nothing else... Thomas> It's not just a binutils problem; it's a pervasive Debian Thomas> problem. Thomas> We seem to have a LOT of packages which use pre-release Thomas> software. Libc 2.1.95 anyone? Or XChat 1.5.x Just two examples of varying importance that come to mind. [...snip lots of stuff I agree with] One question which you mentioned in a later message is: What if we release woody before there's been an official stable release of the package in question? What if there's no official libc 2.2 before woody's freeze? Do we have a guarantee for that not happening? No. So we potentially want to release woody with 2.1.95? *If* we release non-official/non-canonical packages, we should mark them as such, so users don't get confused. And they should AMAP be separate packages kept in parallel to the official packages.[1] Bye, J [1] Don't get me started about our `2.2.17' kernel package. For kernel packages, I expect to be able to download a kernel from kernel.org and get the same kernel as in the Debian kernel-image package. There should have been a kernel-image-2.2.17pre (or kernel-image-2.2.17debian), and a kernel-image-2.2.16 built from the official 2.2.16 kernel... -- Jürgen A. Erhard juergen.erhard@gmx.net phone: (GERMANY) 0721 27326 MARS: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard/mars_index.html Bill Gates brought you Windows. Linus brought you the whole DAMN HOUSE!
Attachment:
pgpgOyXnPZdo7.pgp
Description: PGP signature