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

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

Hi, Don

recent? current? upstream? fresh? :-)

Why the need for volatile then? I admire I'm confused a bit. Whatever, there should be one supported, official, and acknowledged repository for the purpose, I think. Not necessarry ALL desktop software should be upgraded this way, however at least the most demanded mainstream..

The stable cycle should reflect the mainstream course, so that not much additional work should be necessarry to do that. Maybe the cycle should copy the LSB's one somehow.


Don Armstrong  wrote / napísal(a):
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
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.

That's precisely what a backport is. New versions of a Debian package
compiled against stable with whatever changes are required to get them
to compile. If the root of the concern is because the term "backport"
is scary or otherwise unpalatable, then suggest an alternative term.

Don Armstrong

Odchádzajúca správa neobsahuje ví­rusy, nepou¾í­vam Windows.

Mgr. Peter Tuhársky
Referát informatiky
Mesto Banská Bystrica
ÈSA 26
975 39 Banská Bystrica

Tel: +421 48 4330 118
Fax: +421 48 411 3575


Reply to: