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

Re: Debian concordance

On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 01:41:47AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 6/19/05, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> > 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*?

> The examples that come to mind immediately are those with substantial
> components in both native code and an interpreted or bytecode
> language, such as Perl XSUBs and Python extensions.

Yes, these are specific examples of packages that will be rendered
uninstallable in unstable by an ABI change on a particular package.  Your
claim was that *all* packages "of any great complexity" would be
uninstallable after six months.

And while perl XSUBs from woody are not installable in sarge, python
extensions from woody *are* generally installable in sarge (for reasons we
shouldn't be particularly proud of, but still).

> And what are the odds of my tweaked Python profiler, built to divert
> individual files within the Python library tree, working with sid's stock
> Python build come December?

A pathological case if ever I heard one...

> The next example to pop into my head is the Midgard content management
> framework, which involves both an Apache module and piles of PHP code.
>  The chances of a binary package built on sarge installing (let alone
> working) against next year's apache and php packages in sid probably
> aren't that high.

Which still doesn't prove a claim that *no* packages will be installable
after six months.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: