Re: Bug#135357: ITP: galeon-beta -- Galeon webbrowser (gnome) - development versions
> There was some article in LWN.net (right now at the front
> page/editorial) http://lwn.net/ about Debian where it was stated:
> "The joy of an unstable life." [...] "If you want the bleeding edge,
> you'll probably find it there" [...] "The unstable distribution is not
> for everybody, of course. [...] short time window when the PAM packages
> were broken; the result was a system that nobody could log into."
>
> A quite pro-Debian article stating that altugh Debian potato is quite
> "stale", Debian is one of the most up-to-date distributions.
> Really nice. - The article actually recommends running Debian for people
> wanting to take part in Free Software Development, because it's so easy
> to keep up with current development versions.
I liked this article alot actually, but i think it is important packages
within the unstable distribution are not themselves *very* beta quality
and unstable. The majority of the packages are stable releases but their
situation is unstable
This is what i understand from the article, very few developers would
use very (ie cvs) dependencies. They would depend on recent stable
releases.
I think development versions of packages should be available, i dont
want to put people off packaging them. But i think that packages of
stable releases are given greater priority by the developer.
In this case i have no objections to the package as there is already a
good galeon package and this is not just a random cvs snapshot but a
true development branch
> As i'm having the galeon 1.1.3 packages ready anyway and use them
> everyday - why not fulfill that claim of lwn.net? ;)
> Maybe i'll upgrade them to some current cvs snapshot, too.
> The Galeon Team probably will release 1.1.4 anytime soon; and maybe even
> 1.2.0 too - which would be a candidate for galeon "-stable" then.
Package it! I'll probably use this :)
I think an informal consesus on what stability of packages (at upstream)
should be considered for sid.
Thanks
--
Rob 'robster' Bradford
http://robster.org.uk
Reply to: