[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Temporal Release Strategy

On 4/20/05, Jeff Carr <jcarr@linuxmachines.com> wrote:
> Adam M wrote:
> >>? I guess I don't understand enough about how the build process works
> >>for the packages in debian but that sounds funny to me. Or I just don't
> >>understand what you mean.
> >
> >
> > To build security patches, you need the same libraries, compilers,
> > etc... for the release so the built package has the same ABI.
> Surely. I just thought there could be only one version of a package in
> the Packages.gz file. I didn't think each older package that might be in
> main/a/apache/ would be rebult with the enviornment that it was
> originally built in. If I understand you correctly and that is what
> happens, then I see that would be computing intensive.

Well, this is one problem with having automatic releases like this.
There are much bigger problems though, like mirror space. The
Vancouver proposal trying to address this. If you have a package with
versions A for arch A', then maintainer uploads package version B but
arch A' can't keep up building it, then the mirrors must have both,
versions A and B of the source of the package. Vancouver proposal was
trying to move some less popular and/or obsolete arches from the main
mirror network to a voluntary one (ie. not trying to kill the ports or

As you can see, having many overlapping releases like the "Temporal
Release Strategy" would kill the current mirror network.

> > Yes, it is mostly FUD. You can change the symlinks to ...
> Well, I can't really change them; I was more just giving my point of
> view as a happy debian user.
> Sorry; wasn't trying to do that. Just passing on results of working in a
> corporate enviornment and the kinds of complaints that have been used
> against debian deployment.

I would suggest instead of saying you are installing testing, just
tell them you are installing Debian Sarge, or Debian 3.1 and set up
/etc/apt/sources.list to refer to sarge in place of
stable/testing/unstable. There is no use telling people they are
running "unstable" or "testing" if they don't know what it means in
the first place (like telling people about building a nuclear power
plant instead of a coal power plant - they'll rise up in protest
without realising that coal power plants produce more radiation than a
nuclear power plant).

- Adam

Reply to: