On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 03:43:58PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:34:20PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > > On 20-Nov-02, 13:31 (CST), Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com> wrote: > > > If the package is compatible (this is the majority case) with its > > > dependancies from unstable and testing then you can test to see if it is > > > this package or some library it depends on. libc6 is a perfect example. To > > > test xvncviewer I had to install the libc6 from unstable, and vnc just > > > doesn't HAVE to depend on libc6 2.3.x, it could have just as easily depended > > > on libc6 2.2.5 in testing. If it did, then it could be in testing now. > > And then when libc6 2.3.x dropped into testing, and broke xvncviewer, it > > would be broken in testing as well as unstable. Yes, I understand that > > it can still happen with packages that haven't yet been built with libc6 > > 2.3.x, but I don't see how increasing the problem helps. > No, libc6 didn't break vnc at all AFAICT, but it is the act of having to > upgrade my libc6 just to test vnc, and the fact that now that vnc doesn't > have any RC bugs, it is not in testing ONLY because it depends libc6 2.3.x. This is a user's point of view: testing is less useful to me as a user because package <x> is being held up in unstable. Not to suggest that users' pov should not be taken into consideration, but the stated purpose for the creation of testing was not to (directly) provide a perfect distribution for our users; it was to provide a distribution that's more up-to-date than stable, but more stable than unstable, as a middle ground that would entice more users to help *test* as part of the release cycle on our way to stable. What you're saying doesn't indicate that testing has failed to meet its intended goals, only that it's not a good fit for your particular uses. I personally think that the stable-testing-unstable spread really gives us quite good coverage for meeting the diverse needs of our users. If you want the cutting edge, use unstable. If you need something that's rock-solid because you don't have time to tinker, use stable. If you're somewhere in between, give testing a try. Indeed, with apt pinning, it's even possible to mix-and-match without too much headache. I just don't see how linking against libraries from testing helps us keep testing more up-to-date without compromising other goals. In particular, building packages against testing seems like a recipe for library interdependency hell, whatever benefit it might bring to applications; that wouldn't seem to be very helpful on the "stability" front. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpgrbPJDjBZd.pgp
Description: PGP signature