On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:22:35PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > On 6/18/05, Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote: > > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > Practically speaking, the differences in compatibility between Ubuntu and > > > Debian is of as much concern as those between Debian stable and Debian > > > unstable. New interfaces are added in unstable constantly, and software is > > > adapted to use them. Binary packages from unstable are rarely installable > > > on stable without upgrading other supporting packages. Third party > > > packagers must choose whether to provide builds for stable (if the package > > > builds), unstable or both. So far, this has not resulted in a problem for > > > Debian. > > Except unstable is capable of running packages built on stable, and > > stable is to some extent (partial upgrades) capable of running packages > > built on unstable. And if it doesn't work, a dependency will tell you it > > doesn't work. And Debian is able to decide we want to make it work better > > and fix things. So I don't think your analogy holds up very well. > After six months, I suspect that sid will have evolved to where no > binary package of any great complexity from sarge will install on it > without a stack of "oldlibs"; and backports will be (as usual) a royal > pain. Better just to run a carefully selected sid snapshot. Test > your backups frequently, though. :-) Of 596 "lib" packages in woody (loosely identified), 325 are still present in sarge. That's after three years of more or less constant development. Where did you come up with this absurd idea that all binary packages "of any great complexity" will become uninstallable after only six *months*? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature