Is the stable/unstable split broken?
Is Debian's stable/unstable split a broken concept?
Here's the problem as I see it. I want to run an operating system
where I get to choose the level of instability. So, when I run
"apt-get update", I only want to get stable packages downloaded. On
the other hand, I want to be able to run Python 2.0, for example.
Debian's only answer is that I should either install 2.0 in
/usr/local, or else upgrade to unstable. The first makes me wonder
what problem dpkg is supposed to be solving, if the first answer to
any problem is "work around it". The second is unacceptable for the
reason I just outlined.
I propose that Debian eliminate the concept of the stable vs unstable
distributions, and instead have a meta-package called "stable". If I
say "apt-get upgrade stable", that upgrades me to the latest version
of stable, which of course also fetches all the packages it depends
on.
This creates problems, but the solution for every one of them is "Use
the dependency system." I would also note that not every version of
everything is compatible with everything else. A Debian user may have
to upgrade some packages just because they upgraded one. Oh well.
That's a lot better than having to upgrade everything just to get
Python 2.0.
dpkg may need to remember whether a user asked for a package, or
whether it was installed as a dependency. If the depending package is
later removed, then the dependency package may also be removed. I
don't *think* it keeps track of that now.
--
-russ nelson <sig@russnelson.com> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "This is Unix...
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Stop acting so helpless."
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | --Daniel J. Bernstein
Reply to: