>>>>> "csj" == csj <csj@mindgate.net> writes: [...] csj> So why not allow an "unstable" end-user software like Mozilla 1.0 csj> into an otherwise "stable" distribution? In case of library csj> conflicts, the versions necessary for mission-critical software csj> takes precedence. If building is impossible, then the end-user csj> software isn't allowed in. csj> Since Debian is a volunteer-based organization, this might require csj> a changeover into a two-maintainer structure. Someone will take csj> care of the unstable port and another the stable. Something which csj> has already been (or is being) "unofficially" done. Why do we need to make such huge and complicated changes that will inevitably lead to stable releases taking longer to release, when the simple solution of fixing the delay between releases fixes just about everything? Not intended as a flame, but I can see your solution as an organizational headache (or rather as having a very large potential for being an organizational headache) which, in the end, won't make a significant enough difference to justify. Plus, who gets do decide what is "end-user" software, and what is "mission-critical"? e.g. someone might consider emacs to be mission critical, because they edit all their config files with it (or even worse, they use it as their web server[1]), but then everyone else will be complaining that they don't get to play with emacs21 for a year after it's released. Then again, some people's "end-user" software *is* mission-critical (Internet kiosks, etc.). [1] http://www.gci-net.com/users/j/johnw/Emacs/httpd.el -- Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
Attachment:
pgpXjfHL1y7nt.pgp
Description: PGP signature