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

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/05, Ian Murdock <imurdock@gmail.com> wrote:
> > glibc. Shipping X.org and GNOME 2.10 adds value, since sarge doesn't
> > ship them. Shipping glibc 2.6.5 vs. glibc 2.6.2 just adds
> > incompatibilities.
> Speaking as someone with no Ubuntu affiliation (and IANADD either), I
> think that statement is based on a somewhat shallow analysis of how
> glibc is handled. [...]

I don't doubt there were changes, even some worthwhile changes,
between the version of libc in sarge and the versions in
hoary/breezy. My question is: Are the changes worth breaking
compatibility? It's a cost/benefit thing. And if they're
important enough, why aren't they going into Debian directly?

I understand why Ubuntu was moving ahead of Debian before, since
Debian was so far behind. But now that sarge is out, don't
you think it would be worthwhile to give Debian a chance to fix its
release cycle problems and, better yet, to try to help fix them,
rather than simply saying "Debian is too slow/unpredictable for us"?

Again, as I've said before, it's *sarge* the rest of the world thinks
of as Debian, not sid. So, "we're getting out patches into
sid" or "we're tracking sid" or whatever doesn't really help anything.

Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)

"A nerd is someone who uses a telephone to talk to other people about
telephones." --Douglas Adams

Reply to: