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

Re: Where is Debian going?

csj wrote:

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:49:40 -0500
"Derrick 'dman' Hudson" <dman@dman.ddts.net> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 05:51:20PM -0400, Thatcher Ulrich wrote:
| On Jul 11, 2002 at 02:04 +0800, csj wrote:
| > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:03:17 -0500
| > "Jamin W. Collins" <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> wrote:

| > Maybe instead of stable, testing, and unstable, we can have:
| > server(must be stable), desktop (with newer but not bleeding edge
| > stuff) and developer (because they're the ones who're in the best
| > position to fix it).

As long as the names' connotations convey their intent, it really
doesn't matter what they are.

Just be careful with calling one release "server"  and one "desktop"
    Do you want people to think that they can only run "server" on a
        (I run testing/unstable on some servers, and I say it is
        still better than RH)
    Do you want people to think they can't install debian on their
        desktop because "desktop" doesn't have official CDs?

Perhaps you didn't see the invisible winky ;-). I agree. I don't care
what the names are. And I suspect most gnubies don't either. My point is
that the definition of "stable" to most Debiants is tied up inexorably
to the server model (never has a tummy ache even if it runs 24/7).
Servers tend to be quite boring, and so a day-old Apache release
probably has less bugs than a month-old Mozilla.

So why not allow an "unstable" end-user software like Mozilla 1.0 into
an otherwise "stable" distribution? In case of library conflicts, the
versions necessary for mission-critical software takes precedence. If
building is impossible, then the end-user software isn't allowed in.

Since Debian is a volunteer-based organization, this might require a
changeover into a two-maintainer structure. Someone will take care of
the unstable port and another the stable. Something which has
already been (or is being) "unofficially" done.

Debian needs a slightly different cycle:

Unstable (bleeding edge) ~~~> Testing (mostly useable) ---> Frozen (No packages may be added beyond security updates. This branch is being prepared for release) ----> Stable (Rock solid. End product).

'~~~>' means packages trickle down when ready. '--->' means the entire branch moves down as a whole.

Why? 1. There are many, such as myself, whose only contribution is testing. This may be for many reasons not necessarily related to skill level. Personally, I only have time to do testing. I don't have time to deal with troubleshooting unstable (I've followed unstable in the past)

2.  The Debian cycle needs to stay moving at all times.

3. Testing has proven itself, in practice, to be the branch of choice for one desiring to stay modern. If it gets frozen that causes many problems including the above mentioned ones.

P.S. I like the names. They make Debian more fun. It's possible to have explicit apt sources in /etc/apt/sources.list and follow a distribution all the way from unstable to stable without changing the apt sources. IMHO, that's neat.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: