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

Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)

Nigel Jones wrote:
On 09/08/05, Erik Steffl <steffl@bigfoot.com> wrote:

  mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in
unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed
2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this?
Same for udev (requiring linux kernel 2.6.12 which wasn't available for
debian) etc. At least explanation and status update would help (the bug
does have a vague ETA but no explanation). Unstable is pretty much the
only debian version usable for desktop (in general, I guess somebody

I would _NEVER_ recommend someone install Debian Unstable as a
desktop...  Testing, yes, Stable even more so.

could use stable for desktop) because desktop software (X, browsers, kde
and gnome etc.) and HW support develops/changes too fast for stable to
be able to keep up.

But the point of Stable, is that it is not effected by ABI Transitions
except between major releases.  Stable is as good for Desktops as it
is for servers.  If someone however dearly wants Stable with updated
hardware, it is possible to pin apt stable sources, yet allow
testing/unstable kernel/x/wm/* packages in.

The comment of yours could also be put in way that: your "HW support
changes too fast" will relate just as easy to networking, but if they
invent 100gbit/s network cards for mainstream release in 2 hours time,
the stable hardware support is out dated, (btw, purposely
far-fetched).  If the admin wishes to use that hardware, by all means
he/she can go and apt-get that kernel that supports it, if he/she
wishes...  My main point is, what your saying applies to 99% of users,
so in general are you saying Debian should just have a version called
"Unstable", ok it would mean quicker security updates, no freezes,
madhouse updates, mass package breakage during transitions... but
overall, that would be really great for a Desktop or a server right?

Sorry if any of the details are incorrect, but I do not like the idea
of Desktop computers running unstable, esp in the world of what seems
to be, mostly, Windows users.  Only exception, developers/maintainers
that work in those areas and have to test constantly, and are prepared

  servers versus desktops:

- the software for servers is a lot more stable (year old apache is great, year old mozilla is useless),

- on servers you don't need HW support for latest gizmos (year old disk, network card etc. are OK, year old video card is showing its age)

- servers are usually supposed to be running all the time, mostly specific set of packages that you already tested, upgrades are costly (e.g. testing that all the home grown perl scripts work with new perl version etc.)

all in all, if you offer a distro that is several years old it's not suitable for _general_ desktop use (I'm sure it would be OK for _some_ dektop users), regardless of how much you dislike people running unstable.

Frankly I don't understand why so many debian developers live in denial... For desktop usage you need _new_ software - pretty much all the desktop sofrware is under heavy development and is going from proof of concept to something actually usable (mozilla, gnome, kde, open office, games, support for new HW etc.).

and pinning is ridiculous, if I wanted to maintain my distro I'd go withslackware or some other hand-off distro and keep my add ons in /opt/package-version. Testing is evenmroe ridiculous, it breaks for longer periods of time and I'm nto sure about security fixes (it didn't use to get them in timely fasion, maybe that was fixed in the meantime).

All in all debian should somehow solve the age issue - either release more often or put more effort in keeping unstabl working (and it's working very well, I've been using it for several years without major problems and even minor problems are fairly rare, I guess it's just a little bit of attitude change)

Now that there's experimental isn't that a good playing ground? I was under impression that experimental is for stuff that potentially breaks something, and unstable is for release candidates...


Reply to: