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

Re: Debian concordance

Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > No, Debian packages just work, if dpkg allows you to install them on
> > your system.
> > 
> > Unless, now, they happen to be built by someone running the other
> > distribution.
> I can think of several ways that this could happen, but I haven't
> actually seen any of them yet.  Would you mind adducing some examples?

I haven't bothered to find them, but given what I'm hearing about the
glibc incompatabilities in this thread, I'm sure they exist, right?

> I agree with Joey that mucking with the actual packaging system (or
> even a very popular helper kit) is one of the more fork-like things
> that a derivative distro can do.  But this is certainly an area where
> sarge+hoary is no worse than woody+sid-after-twelve-months was; many
> backported source packages were broken in gross or subtle ways if you
> didn't start by building yourself an up-to-date debhelper.

However, debhelper is excessively careful to preserve backwards
compatability and when a package's build dependencies don't express
its need for a newer debhelper, we file a bug report.

> Here I can disagree from experience.  RPM hell is being unable to
> reproduce your vendor's binaries as a starting point for subsequent
> modifications (with or without third-party help), and it was already
> gaping wide as of Red Hat 5.2.

That is not how I've heard most users define the term. It's certianly a
valid problem.

> Ubuntu is the first Debian derivative not to be more or less a random
> sid snapshot plus the deriver's pet hacks. 

Well random sid/testing/stable snapshots.
With the exception of most CDDs; cf skolelinux, debian-edu, etc.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: