Re: Stable means not-changing?
You would think, at least in the case of bash, a bash 2.01 (or whatever)
would be compiled against libc5 and put in the bo-updates tree. This
orphaning of the 1.3 tree sorta ticks me off. Since the kernel fiasco
(2.0.30) had already occurred for the very same reason, and since we've
gone through the new version naming upheaval to accomodate CD
manufacturers and otherwise promote commercialization of the
distribution, it's disheartening to see the mad rush to release debian
2.0. It seems to me they ought to try to wait for 2.0 until Linus thinks a
2.2.x kernel is ready. (Of course, since I don't follow the kernel
development, the debian developers probably know something I don't.) I see
a real possibility that the stable Debian distribution is going to be
quite unstable in the coming year+, so I'd like a rock solid 1.3 point of
departure.
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, George Bonser wrote:
>
> On 25-Sep-97 Pete Harlan wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> I think these things ARE being fixed but the fixes are being compiled against
> libc6 and the new packages are going into unstable. At this point, you are
> probably closer to the truth than you know when you call 1.3 "abandoned". It is
> actually libc5 that is abandoned.
>
>
> --
> 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 .
>
>
--
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: