Re: post-release package update policy
I am a slackware user and I've been following this discussion fairly
closely. As we all know, the major problem with slackware is upgrading
from one release to the next.
Slackware is extremely stable and it comes, "ready to run", right out of
the box. However, it is a major pain in the arse to upgrade from x.y to
x.y+1. You never know what to replace and so you end up replacing the
whole darn thing.
When I read the debian release, I became very excited because I thought
the following was true: You would have a stable release which could be
upgraded from x.y to x.y+1 _without_ major upheavals. What I have been
witnessing on this list is very similar to the way slackware operates.
Not good!
Please, have a stable release, and an update site. Update the stable
release say, every six months. In the interim, let the packages pile up
at the update site where the rest of us can ignore them. However, don't
forget your promise ... give us a way to get from y to y+1 without
re-installing. If you can't figure out a way to do this, I would imagine
the bulk of us will stay with slackware. Why change?
Gary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
gary@rattler.cameron.edu http://rattler.cameron.edu/gary.html
gary@bear.sirinet.net
Reply to: