Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Stanislav Maslovski <stanislav.maslovski@gmail.com>]

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:12:18AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> 
> I see main problem with testing that broad platform changes are going 
> there. That's why things break sometimes there.
> 
> That's why I think, that the Stable platform with new desktop software 
> might be the choice -the new software versions with no platform 
> dependecies breakage risk.
> 
> This is closest to "backports" and "volatile" idea. I wouldn't call it 
> "backports" however, because that reminds porting some very new software 
> to some very old platform, and this is not the case. The stable's basic 
> platform should stay LSB-compliant and "moderately-aged" (supported by 
> all main software vendors) for the whole length of release cycle. Thus 
> the new versions of desktop software wouldn't be "backported"; just 
> compiled against ordinary, stable platform.

This sounds more rational. Yes, the megafreeze model that Debian uses at the
moment has certain drawbacks. However, my experience shows that currently it
is the best one can get out of the free distros at the moment (with regard to
stability), IMO. And I choose for stability.

A base system (required utils + services + libs, 0 RC bugs) + script based automatic
building/backporting system, similar to that used in "testing", could be an
option. This was discussed, i believe, many times in the past.

-- 
Stanislav