Re: ubuntu-science
Hi,
On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 21:27, Michael Gilbert wrote:
[snip]
> two disributions are wasting precious resources on duplicative
> packaging. if the debian stable gcc (and some other necessary core
> libraries) were used by ubuntu (instead of the unstable gcc, etc),
> then there would be no need for the ubuntu universe effort (debian
> stable packages could be used without modification on ubuntu). this
> is a bad decision by ubuntu, and makes life more difficult than need
> be for all involved. this has been discussed previously:
>
I use Debian/Woody crafted by backports, some compiled by myself.
But the stable Debian release including backports does not give me much
more recent SW. Fixes and significant improvements of applications
never go in stable. And the backports can only cover parts.
Therefor I understand and like the UBUNTU decision to use the gcc from
Sid (gcc-3.4,-4.x). gcc-3.4 exists for a long time.
This way I can take a very recent SW from Sid (i.e. imagemagick) or even
simply the latest tar from upstream and install.
If the recent version fails, doesn't matter. A previous working one is
available.
> http://ianmurdock.com/archives/000244.html
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/11/2335221&tid=163&tid=90&tid=190&tid=106
>
> the reason ubuntu chooses to go this route is to be able to push the
> latest software in their releases. however, they can just as easily
> use and support http://www.backports.org to obtain the same effect.
>
Extending backport to hold everything would also be an option.
But only if backports of end applications use backports of libraries.
Kind Regards,
Thomas
Reply to: