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

Re: why is Ardour pretty outdated in stable and not in testing?

Grammostola Rosea <rosea.grammostola@gmail.com> writes:

> Also maybe Debian can be a bit less conservative when such a core
> app

I think Ardour is pretty far from “a core app”. That term should be
reserved for nigh-indispensible applications like the MTA or even the
well-named ‘coreutils’.

> is not in stable and stable releases go out the door after years! I
> guess some packages are added in Etch after a while.

As has been explained several times, Debian stable releases *do not*
get new packages added. Only security updates and grave bug fixes to
*existing* packages in that release; that guaranteed resistance to
change is precisely what is meant by referring to them as “stable”.

Currently, Debian Etch (4.0), released 2007-04-08, is the ‘oldstable’
release, and Debian Lenny (5.0), released 2009-02-14, is the ‘stable’
release. They will not be getting any packages added, since they are

Debian Squeeze is the current ‘testing’ branch. It will become the
next release, once it is declared ready. For now, new packages can
enter it, according to certain criteria.

> But main point is, that Ardour should hit testing after a while.

It may do so, if it enters ‘unstable’ first and then meets all of the
criteria for migration from ‘unstable’ to ‘testing’
<URL:http://www.debian.org/devel/testing>. If you want to see a newer
version of the package in Debian, those criteria are the ones you are
interested in.

The criteria, you will observe, are *not* subject to pleading for the
package to go in, nor to claims of the package's advantages. They are
much more amenable to addressing bug reports and work on the part of
the package maintainers (and those who are interested enough to help
with that work).

 \     “Here is a test to see if your mission on earth is finished. If |
  `\                          you are alive, it isn't.” —Francis Bacon |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply to: