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

Re: GNOME-2 transition: necessary?



On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 05:36:33PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Second, I'm thinking less of "woody+1" than of "woody+0.1".  I suspect
> that if woody were ever to get released, a "point release" would
> follow fairly quickly to catch up on new versions of things.  It may
> happen that this point release comes before the G1->G2 transition is
> smoothed out, so it would be nice to have the same G1 packages
> available.  Right now, gnome-terminal 1.4 has vanished from SID.
> It needs to be restored if a new debian revision should be required
> for whatever reason.

Hahaha, how little you know Debian!

Unless there's an absolutely critical reason to do otherwise, woody is
stable.  That is to say, static.  Three years from whenever woody does
managed to get released, we'll probably still be trying to get sarge
stable and flaming users who complain that woody is still a 2.4 and even
2.2 dist when Linux 2.8.x has been out for months...


Debian does not change stable, except to release security fixes and maybe
squash a few really critical bugs.  Given the stellar success of the last
attempt to produce an update for a stable dist, I don't have any faith in
the notion that this process will ever change, regardless of whether or
not stable even boots on people's machines.

(Note, woody will not boot on my workstation already without a custom set
of boot floppies and changes to a few base packages..  If I sound
disgruntled about this, it's because I raised this issue a year ago for
potato and found that my fellow Debian developers really didn't give a rip
one way or another whether or not stable was actually installable on a
machine purchased within the past year or so.  Galen, this box, is
currently more than one year old excepting its recent HD upgrade..)

-- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>     The guy with a rocket launcher
 
* seeS uses knghtbrd's comments as his signature
<knghtbrd> seeS: as soon as I typed them I realized I'd better snip them
           myself before someone else did  ;>

Attachment: pgprmsv1dEt3j.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: