Re: Old versions
On Sunday 23 July 2006 01:49, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 01:34:42AM -0400, Godless Infidel wrote:
> > Is it true, as I have heard, that you must run "testing" or "unstable"
> > in order to run the recent versions of applications?
>
> Hi $NEW_USER,
> Debian has many streams and each has a goal. Stable is meant to be
> 'released' and has 'release goals' like stabillty and specific features.
> Since it is 'released' about every 18 months, it does not, by
> definition, contain the most recent versions of any software.
Does it at least contain the most recent versions available at
release-time, or are they so afraid of introducing bugs that they
only use versions that have been out for a while?
> But people who use it get 'enterprise-ready' and easy to use software.
> If you want something that has more recent versions, you can run testing
> or unstable. But you must deal with the shortcommings those version have:
> they are less well tested, libel to not be 100% installable and have
> changing sets of programs.
This here is my main concern with unstable. About how much of the
unstable distribution is uninstallable right now? If it's low enough
percentage-wise, I need not worry about how old the software in 'stable'
is.
> I use unstable, which has the most change,
> but I would not run it on a production server, it is better suited for
> experienced users who dont need enterprise-ready software, not that it
> isn't close to that already. There is one way to use more recent
> versions of some software on stable, that is to use 'backports'. Again
> this is a compromise but one that many make. It takes more recent
> version of important software for servers and recompiles that to work
> with library versions in stable.
Are you talking about recompiling software outside of the package
manager, or do 'backports' work within the package manager. My
current Red Hat system is so full of such software (outside of
RPM) that there's no longer any point in trying to use RPM. I have a
directory full of the original source tarballs just to keep track
of what's installed and where it went during 'make install'.
And since the subject of library versions came up, do
you know why new libraries are binary-incompatible with
old ones these days, even for applications that only use
the functions provided by the older library versions? I
remember a time when all you needed was a library with the
right symbols in it. But now, a simple program compiled
against the latest version of glibc won't work with an
older minor revision of glibc, because ld.so checks a
version number that is somehow embedded in the binary.
> It provides an intermediate solution
> for stable users but it again affect the useability of stable as
> backports introduce a possible source of instability to the 'stable'
> release while giving a bit of improved functionality.
> cheers,
> Kev
--
checking for intelligent life... not found
-- The GIMP configure script
Reply to: