Re: The stable/testing/unstable branches not a solution ?
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:50:50PM -0600, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:
> >>The server systems that require consistency in their environments would
> >>simply use the base system, which would consist of the basic 'server'
> >What's a "basic 'server' package" that wouldn't be updated for a long
> >time in your scheme?
> All of the above? I'm not real sure, I haven't fleshed out in my mind
> which packages would go where. I see the base system consisting of
> infrastructure packages that form kind of a base set of tools. Things
> that would cause mass breakage if updated regularly without a release
> process. So definately Perl. Add-ons would consist of desktop
> environment stuff, IM clients, games, e-mail clients, etc.
It seems you think it would be easy to sort the packages that way, and
this would meet everyone's needs.
But let's make an example:
PHP is definitely a package that is used on servers and not on
desktops - but I've heard serveral people complaining that the Version
in Debian 3.0 is too outdated for their needs.
And assume some important piece of hardware in a server requires a new
major release of the kernel (e.g. currently 2.6): You might have to wait
many years until the next base system with support for this kernel will
be available before you can install Debian on your brand-new server.
> Joel Konkle-Parker
"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