[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Stable means not-changing?

> For the most part, it means "non-changing".  While it would be nice to
> fix each package with a problem, doing so always runs the risk of breaking
> other packages on the system.  Verifying the integrity of the system as a

Perhaps this has been taken a little too much to heart; I keep
updating my system thinking one or two packages must have had some
fixes (security being my major concern), but nothing's changed.  It's
better than having a lot of minor Foo-23.deb --> Foo-24.deb updates,
but gives the impression that "stable" means "abandoned".

E.g. bash-2.0, which was found to be buggy almost immediately
(granted, not with a security issue, but it broke other packages).
Under 1.1 and 1.2 these things were fixed right away, which led me to
think that security issues would be address equally quickly; 1.3.1
makes a person wonder.

Note that I am not actually complaining about 1.3.1, just trying to
point out what it looks like to someone used to frequent stable
updates.  For all I know 1.3.1 hasn't changed because, except for
bash, it's perfect.  And I'm certainly glad that you're not having us
download a whole new X just for a nitpick change to xdm's login

Finally, the analogy to kernel development comes to mind; though it's
progressing now, for long periods the broken 2.0.30 kernel saw little
public attention from many key kernel gurus, which puzzled the masses
who were used to Linus poring over every oops on linux-kernel.

> whole is far more difficult than verifying a single package.  For

In the case of Bash-2.0, which broke a lot of scripts anyway[*],
turning it into Bash-2.01 would only have been an improvement.

> They are especially rare in this case because Hamm marks such a major change
> (with libc6 and all).  Thus, fixes are very hard to propogate back to Bo

Granted this changes the picture.  It's probably better to focus on
2.0 and get it out before Christmas than to coddle 1.3.1 and delay
Hamm a year.


[*] Does anyone know where there was a doc explaining that "{ foo }"
suddenly had to become "{ foo; }" when upgrading to Bash-2.0?  That
only choked on about a hundred of my scripts that had worked fine
under 1.14 (or whatever it was)...

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: