Re: Stable means not-changing?
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 schulte@Uni-Wuppertal.DE wrote:
> Why not not installing libc6 coexisting with libc5, as described by Scott
> Ellis´ Mini-Howto which is weekly (?) posted on this list. It proved to
> be painless for me and has bash-2.01. It is a rather small step, making
> my system in no way "unstable".
This is surely a good idea. But you can't use dselect for this, you can't
tell the testers of linux distributions to install some 'unstable'
packages, whatever that means, before judging the power and actuality of
debian before they publish.
What would you think if we asked the maintainers to have a distribution
between stable and unstable, somewhat like "current" ? It could be stable,
but actual. Including libc6 _and_ 5, running the best packages of hamm,
but keeping the basics with debian 1.3.1.
When using the whole unstable distribution someone has to be a developer
to accept having to fiddle around with the small bugs every now and then.
But there could be a way to have a slowly improving system which is not
always upgraded by hand.
What I want to say is that when we don't use the capabilities of dselect
together with dftp regularly, its more convenient to buy cd's every half a
year. And when that happens, the debian way of installing software is not
much better than the redhat or suse way, which would be a pity.
Would it be too much work to maintain a "current"-distribution?
--
Lukas Eppler (godot)
http://www.fear.ch
telnet://soil.fear.ch:3333
talk:godot@moon.fear.ch
--
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: