Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:38:51PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > It is unreasonable to tell the users and upstreams that Debian is
> > going to keep users on a known inferior version by default for a long
> > time, just in case more testing is needed to discover problems in the
> > release version (often in addition to multiple already discovered
> > problems that Debian is intentionally leaving for users to suffer
> > from, as the most natural way to fix them would be to update to a
> > newer upstream version).
> You may consider it most natural, the rest of the project values
> stability and not introducing untested new features.
I think you misunderstood that as saying I wanted to change packages in
stable; the above was from the perspective of unstable (the natural way
to fix known issues in unstable would be to upload a new upstream
version). I do not believe there is any project-wide consensus to avoid
newer versions in unstable.
> Perhaps you may
> feel more at home in a different distribution which aligns with your
> priorities more.
I think unstable works reasonably well outside release problems (there
are sometimes issues with new enough packages not being available, but I
think those are mostly due to activity of individual maintainers, not
project priorities). And I don't believe it to be a shared view of all
Debian maintainers that only stable releases matter, and users of
unstable are only tools to use to polish stable. Nor do I believe that
all other users of unstable are only trying to help create stable
releases for others to use, intentionally sacrificing their own
experience to do so. And whatever distro I personally choose, as
upstream of packaged software I certainly do not approve of Debian
leaving its upstable users at a known inferior version during long