Re: The stable/testing/unstable branches not a solution ?
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 01:03:05AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Lucas,
>...
> However, I remember that Raphael Herzog said something very interesting in his platform for the 2002 DPL election[1]. He introduced the concept of a "working" branch, where packages would go when the maintainer ask for after they would have been tested enough.
> [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2002/platforms/raphael#release1
This proposal has it's problems.
If you followed testing during the last three year you'll for sure have
noticed the big problems that arise from the fact that many packages
have to go into testing _at exactly the same time_ to avoid
uninstallable packages [1]. The problems that come from this problem
non-trivial and as the experiences with testing show require much manual
work.
> I personally don't think Debian should ever release real new versions. Snapshots of a working branch with not so outdated software would be a much better solution. Most of the potential Debian users have broadband internet access now, and don't care about a 7-CD set. Of course, my opinion doesn't have much value, since I'm not even a DD, but I would be very interested in your opinions.
I know several places where servers once installed/upgraded shouldn't be
touched for at least one or two years except for security updates.
Who should in your scheme provide security updates for _all_ snapshots
released during the last let's say two years [2]?
> Thank you,
>
> Lucas
cu
Adrian
[1] e.g. a new major version of perl requires that many packages like
vim, exim4, apache or gaim go into testing at the same time
[2] as a comparison:
RedHat offers five years support for their Enterprise products
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: