Re: What's wrong with debian?
Quoting Hodgins Family <ehodgins@telusplanet.net>:
> These three points lead me to suggest some things:
> 1) Why not dump the concept of a "Release", altogether? (I'm referring
> to Potato vs Woody vs Sarge vs whoever is next.)
> 2) What we are actually running is either i) Debian Stable, ii) Debian
> Testing or iii) Debian Unstable or iv )a mixture. All are current up to
> whatever date we last ran apt-update && apt-upgrade.
> 3) Debian Stable (up to whatever date we last ran apt-update &&
> apt-upgrade) is what (maybe) what Mike was referring to.
>
> Statements such as "I'm waiting for Sarge" become irrelevant.
>
> You can stop reading this now. What follows are just a few analogies
> that I think mirror how Debian could be looked upon. They won't be
> precise analogies, I acknowledge that up front. But, I think that they
> get across what I'm saying above.
>
> My house was "released" in 1955. Later, it upgraded its doors, windows,
> paint, and other components. Think I'd convince anyone throughout the
> house's duty cycle that it was a new release? Its not relevant...its my
> system and it does what it I want it to do.
>
> One of my computers was released in 1990. Later, it upgraded its hard
> drive, RAM, monitor, keyboard, etc. Dare I convince anyone it was a new
> release while all these upgrades were being put in. Its my system and it
> does what I want it to do.
>
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it no longer has upstream support and has been replaced by solid and stable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.
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
Reply to: