* Rick Macdonald <rickmacd@shaw.ca> [20030313 09:55 PST]: > Vineet Kumar said: > > Note that "unofficial apt sources" means precisely "not in Debian". > > Sure, you can download stuff in .deb format, and you can use apt to do > > it, but that doesn't make it part of Debian. Woody (Debian stable) has > > 1.0.0. That's it. > > I've never used any unofficial debs, but a few weeks ago the Debian Weekly > News announced unofficial backports of newer versions of mozilla, > OpenOffice and a couple other packages. This seemed somewhat official and > somewhat part of, or somewhat condoned by, Debian. > > Any comments on this particular set of debs? Well, I'd still call them unofficial. I didn't read that particular newsletter announcement, but if they're not in stable, they're not in stable. Of course, the Debian project condones using non-debian software on debian systems; it is all about freedom after all. I just think it's best we don't confuse the issues of what is and what is not part of the debian system. The software that is part of the debian distribution undergoes a deliberate QA cycle and is supported by the security team's updates. Other software may or may not be updated by its distributors, but that's all external to debian. If you want non-debian software, you're of course free to install it. If the distributor of that software offers you the convenience of apt, great. It makes it easier for you than wget/configure/make, but it's really still the same thing: adding extra software to your debian system. If you want a newer mozilla, you won't find it in debian stable. You can, on the other hand, run a newer mozilla on your debian stable system. You have the option of downloading binaries built for your system, whether packaged or not, or downloading the source and building it for your system, but that doesn't make it part of debian. Anyway, this grew into far too big a pedantic rant, and I doubt it's terribly useful in answering the OP's question about how to run a newer mozilla on his woody box. I hope that despite that, it serves to clear up the issue a bit, and maybe even make some people think twice about using unofficial apt sources from just anywhere. It may or may not be easier to maintain (in the long run) a system in which dpkg is used only for debian software and all other software is installed under /usr/local. I suppose it's finally up to the admin's preferences. Personally, I use apt sources (at least blackdown.org's). good times, Vineet -- http://www.doorstop.net/ -- http://www.digitalconsumer.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature