Re: Rethinking stable updates policy
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 08:48:03PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> and used Debian packaging, here's what was required only to get the
> binary package installed:
>
> http://www.backports.org sarge-backports/main module-init-tools 3.2.2-2bpo1 [79.3kB]
> http://www.backports.org sarge-backports/main makedev 2.3.1-81bpo1 [42.0kB]
> http://www.backports.org sarge-backports/main libklibc 1.4.11-2bpo1 [41.1kB]
> http://www.backports.org sarge-backports/main klibc-utils 1.4.11-2bpo1 [144kB]
> http://www.backports.org sarge-backports/main libvolume-id0 0.093-0bpo1 [56.6kB]
> http://www.backports.org sarge-backports/main udev 0.093-0bpo1 [253kB]
> http://www.backports.org sarge-backports/main initramfs-tools 0.75~bpo.1 [52.9kB]
>
> So it's not only the kernel but half a dozen more packages. Even more
> are required if you want to be able to compile the kernel package as
> well.
Even so (why is a new makedev required, for instance?), this is still
not all that bad. Most of these are single-purpose tools -- in fact,
all of them except for udev are.
I think the cost of having to update 7 small packages in stable is small
compared to the cost of being uninstallable on modern hardware.
-- John
Reply to: