Re: support for older distributions
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 02:45:53PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> Currently there are two usable repositories of Potato packages.
> There's a repository of kernel-related packages to run 2.4.x kernels
> on Potato, and there's a repository of LDAP related packages and other
> things that Wichert is maintaining.
>
> Both of these are good work, but even combined they don't provide what
> I consider to be adequate support for Potato.
>
> I would like a version of Potato that is not entirely frozen. It
> should have updates not only for security reasons but also for
> addition of new programs, and for adding new programs which add
> significant functionality and don't break things (such as Wichert's
> LDAP packages).
why?
aside from the installer floppies (which aren't relevant for upgrades),
the main significant difference between potato and woody (or between
any versions of debian for that matter) is the version numbers of the
packages included.
the distinction between versions of debian is entirely arbitrary, a
matter of consensus reality rather than actual reality.
your suggestion would add a huge load of administrative and maintainence
overhead in order to support a convenient fiction - providing little or
no real benefit. worse than that, it subverts the only real point in
having versioned releases - the ability to know what is included in any
released version.
debian provides mechanisms for easy upgrade between release versions,
and we always have provided that - why complicate matters with branched
sub-releases of old versions?
you also risk creating greater problems back-porting packages from
testing or unstable - they would be divergent packages which don't get
anywhere near the same amount of testing and usage as packages in the
mainline development cycle.
for example, ask yourself: why is libc6-2.2.2-potato1 (or whatever the
potato version would be) any "better" or "safer" than just installing
libc6-2.2.2 from woody or sid? i can't see how it could be, and all
you've achieved is having two divergent versions of 2.2.2 to support.
debian is a "live" distribution, easily upgraded in place at any time
over the internet - why limit yourself to looking at debian in a way
which is more suited to commercial CD-ROM only closed source systems?
IMO, forcing debian into that model is missing a large part of the point
of debian.
potato's been released. woody's getting closer to freeze. lets move on.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0
Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0
Reply to: