>>>>> "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