Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1
Norbert Tretkowski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> * Yann Dirson wrote:
>> Norbert Tretkowski <email@example.com> writes:
>> > * Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >> - testing, unstable or Debian 3.0 with backports aren't suitable for
>> >> production systems
>> > Of course it is, Debian 3.0 with a few _selected_ backports works
>> > nice, also on production systems.
>> As a user of several backports (namely kde3 and OOo), I must confirm
>> Adrian's stance. The lastest example I stumbled upon is that if you
>> install kdebase-dev (or even qt3-dev) from the backport, you can't
>> install libgtk2.0-dev from woody, because both depend on different
>> libpng*-dev which are in conflict with each other.
> I think you haven't seen the "selected" in my sentence. I wasn't
> talking about hundreds of backports. I was talking about "a few
> selected" backports, e.g. quagga on a route server or postfix on a
> mail server.
If you want to express "one to three packages" or "a selection of
handpicked backports that have been doublechecked to work together
well" you should not simply write "selected backports" and expect
people to understand your intention.
Imho using KDE and Oo backports evidently matches "selected