Re: backports.org became really shitty for php5-mysql and mysql-server-5.0
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 05:25:30PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I just expected it to work like it did before, for more than 1 year, and
> that it worked AT LEAST as good as with Etch or SID.
well, if you wanted it to just keep working without change then you should
have stuck with 'stable'. that's the whole point of stable.
> > if you're using backports.org, you may as well be using unstable.
>
> I do, but for development purposes only, like many. If it's about me, I
> use apache 1.3, php4 and mysql4.0 because I don't need anything else.
> But it's NOT about me this time, it's about other people, and I can tell
> you that there are a lot doing this.
you miss the point. backports is no better than unstable. once you use
it on a stable system, you've stopped running stable.
if you think a 'stable' system with some packages from backports is
still 'stable' then you are just fooling yourself. it's not.
> > in fact, you're better off with unstable because there are more
> > people using it, so it is better tested. with backports.org, you
> > can be pretty sure that NOBODY else is using your exact combination
> > of libraries and other packages....so you may be the ONLY person to
> > ever encounter a particular bug.
>
> Do you REALLY think that using php5, mysql5 and apache2 under Sarge is
> uncommon? If you do, I can tell you it's not!
the *EXACT* combination of libraries and other packages on your system
MAY WELL BE UNCOMMON. certainly more uncommon than the packages in
systems running 'unstable'. there may be obscure bugs that only show up
under obscure combinations of libraries and packages. running backports
lets you be the guinea-pig to find out.
> > IMO, backports.org is just a second-rate way of running 'unstable'
> > for people who are scared by the name 'unstable'.
>
> For me, it's just a way of using packages that are really missing
> because of the way that Debian works. I don't like it either, but
> sometimes there is no other way.
yes, there is another way. a better way. run 'unstable'. or run 'stable'
with some packages from 'unstable' (use apt's pinning feature to keep
most stuff as stable except the packages you specifically allow from
unstable). that gives you everything that backports does, with better
testing, better security, and packages by known & identified DDs rather
than random members of the public.
> P.S: Still, my question remains: who should I contact?
whoever's responsible for backports.org. which isn't debian.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
BOFH excuse #49: Bogon emissions
Reply to: