Re: unstable is "unstable"; stable is "outdated"
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > This probably has been (and currently) discussed elsewhere. I think the
> > problems are that there are too many packages and too many dependencies.
>
> Yep, the old exponential dependancy problem...
I see the "problems with unstable" page is over 500 pages (448KB) long.
> > Maybe a solution would be to have a fourth collection (beside stable,
> > testing and unstable): "mini". It would not have thousands of packages.
> > For example, it would only have about 150 to 300 packages. Only new
> > packages are added if a vote approves.
>
> This sounds a little bit like what I think is needed; Debian needs to be
> partitioned into sub-distro's with their own independant release schedules.
>
> > What do you think of having a mini distribution that limits the number of
> > packages allowed?
>
> Why not just call it "debian-core". Then you can have "debian-gnome",
> "debian-kde", "debian-xfree" etc. Each of these can be implemented as
> seperate distro's with their own releases, using Packages files pointing
> into the pool.
>
> This paritions the dependancies, making it all easier to manage, speeding
> the release cycle and potentialy allowing people to mix-n-match stable-core
> with unstable-gnome if they wish.
So do you mean that these sub-distros don't have any dependencies on any
packages within the other sub-distros?
Jeremy C. Reed
echo '9,J8HD,fDGG8B@?:536FC5=8@I;C5?@H5B0D@5GBIELD54DL>@8L?:5GDEJ8LDG1' |\
sed ss,s50EBsg | tr 0-M 'p.wBt SgiIlxmLhan:o,erDsduv/cyP'
Reply to: