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

Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:48:13PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> 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.

http://wiki.debian.org/DebianStability. Also see dev-ref 3.1. And the
huge amount of discussion that lead to
http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseProposals in 2005.

As for consensus, have a read over this thread to see if there's anyone
supporting your views.

> > 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 release freezes.


I would have liked to find a source in dev-ref or something which
pointed out explicitly the commitment to releases. But I can't because
we've been doing releases for NEARLY 20 YEARS.

You seem to believe that unstable is more important than stable
releases. I do not. One of us is in the wrong project.


Reply to: