Re: Is the stable/unstable split broken?
Arthur Korn writes:
> Russell Nelson schrieb:
> > Is Debian's stable/unstable split a broken concept?
>
> No, if you need a _really_ stable system it's not.
You're trying to define "stable" for the sysadmin. Why not let the
sysadmin define stable for themselves? They can just upgrade to
"stable", in which case they always have exactly the same package set
as exists in the current stable distribution.
The advantage of my suggestion is that it allows *any* Debian package
maintainer to define their own idea of what is stable. All they have
to do is publish an empty package depending on what they believe is
stable.
> Well, there is a third option, apt-get -b source.
>
> Debian source package installs could be used for much more, like
> very specific binary optimisations, builds with different
> features/dependencies, debugging builds. (The latter already
> exists in policy, though few packages use DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
> currently).
Do you mean build a binary from a modified source? How is that any
different from building from a tarball?
--
-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: