Re: No KDE/GNOME for stable?
** "Brad" == Brad <email@example.com> wrote:
Brad> On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Daniel Barclay wrote:
>> But why not build the latest-and-greatest version of add-on
>> packages against BOTH the stable and the latest-and-greatest
>> unstable distribution?
>> Then later versions of software (even if they're not long-tested
>> and stable) could be run on the stable distribution.
Brad> Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a stable distribution? If
Brad> you want the latest, go with unstable, that's what it's there
Brad> for (and don't forget to submit any bugs you find! That's also
Brad> what it's there for).
Not always. It is nice to have the latest X packages (simply because
much in hardware support has been added since the slink release) or
GNOME (slink ships with 0.30), without the trouble of moving
completely to unstable (glibc and perl comes to mind).
And there are developers, who have the time, resources and will to do
recompiles. I spoke to Wichert about this matter, and he says it is
more a matter of a missing stable release management. There is a need
for someone with enough knowledge and dedication to handle this. Such
updates could then be handled by a seperate section in the archives
"update packs" or such (and the infrastructure like dinstall has to be
Brad> Or if you want to mix and match, feel free to grab the debian
Brad> sources and build the packages yourself.
Sure. Although it is sometimes not that easy without source
dependancies. One has to be able to interpret the errors, sometimes
more packages from unstable are needed (autoconf, automake comes to
mind), which themself might pull more packages and so on.