Re: What's wrong with debian?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 02 Mar 2005 12:54 am, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> I think that we need to consider the idea of "service packs." That is, we
> have a stable release and periodically a set of packages (I am thinking of
> a server-targeted approach here) can be upgraded for functionality, instead
> of only security. For example, it would be really nice if Woody had
> supported Postfix 2.1, Apache2, Cyrus2, and so on.
>
> I think that there are several potential benefits:
>
> 1) The core libraries (libc, and bretheren) can remain as they are. Other
> applications can be upgraded to more modern versions. Imagine if Mozilla
> 1.6 or 1.7 were in Woody instead of 1.0. The issue of abandoning security
> support would not have been raised.
>
> 2) Or what about the very old version of some of the server software. Most
> of it no longer has upstream support and has been replaced by solid and
> stable versions released upstream. Seriously, try finding information
> about configuring Postfix 1.1.
>
> 3) 1 and 2 combine to give a lower maintenance burden for the individual
> package maintainers and the security team.
>
> 4) It keeps the distribution from lagging too far behind.
>
> 5) It also helps to smooth the transition between major stable releases.
>
> I am not trying to say that we should do the service pack thing since
> everyone else does. However, I think that given the size of Debian
> currently (and the resistance to targeted releases for Dekstop, Server,
> etc.) I think that taking a group of carefully selected packages, that have
> been evaluated and tested for regression, and placing them into stable
> would be a Good Thing(TM).
>
> Besides, I don't think that this is too far from where we are now with the
> idea of point releases (like 3.0r4). I just think that it would represent
> loosening of the criteria for inclusion of packages in such point releases
> without a compromise on quality.
>
> I am interested in hearing what others have to say about this.
Adding functionality in the name of "Service Packs" is a good idea. I second
that.
I just had one question. You mentioned that Postfix 1.1 and other softwares
aren't released upstream. The newer releases are much better and stable.
But what if someone wanted to stick to the old release trying to follow the
rule "If it ain't break, don't fix it". Won't we end up having multiple
releases of the same software.
And if the newer SP's had a policy of conflicting with the older release, it
would be like dictating people to upgrade to a newer release -- just like
Microsoft.
And if we still go with this SP idea, will there be any major need to bring up
a new release of Debian ?
I'm confused how the DD's will think.
rrs
- --
Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com
Gnupg Key ID: 04F130BC
"Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is
research".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCJMp64Rhi6gTxMLwRAg7GAJ42R3DFnblI+HQ747mLoRVyYWIdUwCgjaBn
FtDiccybINhXgMFQwKSLLkM=
=LqUf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: