Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 09:31:13AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 December 2008 10:06, Romain Beauxis <toots@rastageeks.org>
> wrote:
> > > Is that important? Unstable is frozen for nearly 1/2 year now, that's a
> > > problem we should try to solve if we don't want to degrade ourselves to
> > > a server-only distribution.
> >
> > You can't get both recent *and* stabilized software. For a solid release to
> > be done, one needs to hold new improvements for a while.
>
> I think it would be good if we could take time to stabilise the server version
> while continuing to work on development versions.
>
> The Fedora vs RHEL model that Red Hat uses has some benefits.
The Fedora and RHEL is:
Fedora: a somewhat equivalent of Debian Testing. The rules for updating
a package even after a version is released are way more laxed than
Debian Stable.
RHEL: Much less software. You can't expect to maintain the whole
archive of Debian Stable for 5 or 7 years without it. There are many
packages I miss in the CentOS archive.
Also note that none of those distribution has a distinction between
"server" and "desktop" in the release cycle management. Ubuntu has a
"server" variant, but it is merely a way to package different packages
and defaults into the installation CD. RHEL has a distinction between
"server" and "desktop", but I figure that this is because supporting a
server instance costs more (or that people are willing to pay more for
it).
This is somewhat like Ubuntu's LTS: it is a guarantee for 5 years, but
only for Ubuntu's Main, and not for Ubuntu's Universe.
And I figure that sure, the model of RHEL would work well for us. Only if
the Stable release includes *my* pet packages. Just as much as: 'Sure we
can release Lenny tommorow. Just as long as *my* pet bugs get fixed'.
Regards,
--
Tzafrir Cohen | tzafrir@jabber.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's
tzafrir@cohens.org.il | | best
ICQ# 16849754 | | friend
Reply to: