Re: debian unstable, stable enough?
Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.org> wrote:
> On 2006-09-10 06:02:57 -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > That's a nonsense statement. Whether or not something is "up-to-date"
> > has zero to do with whether or not it's more or less "buggy".
>
> Well, in the past, I had mail lost due to the spamassassin from
> the stable distribution. The maintainer (or some other Debian
> developer) agreed that there was a problem, but refused to make
> any update of the package because this wasn't a security hole.
This is the rule for stable. Grave bugs are fixed for the next update
though.
> There are other problems with Debian/stable, such as external
> software that can't be installed because Debian/stable is not
> up-to-date; such external software may be necessary for some
> users.
>
> Another example is Subversion, that needs a recent version of
> OpenSSH (with connection sharing) for performance reasons.
That's not a bug, it's a feature. That's exactly what makes stable so
stable. Backports helps sometimes.
> > Witness the current sysvinit fun in unstable.
>
> Such problems are quite rare. And maintainers should provide a way to
> fix them. And here, it seemed to be the case.
>
> > You expect your average cluebie to even understand the problem, let
> > alone how to go about fixing it? Fortunately the maintainer is right
> > on top of that one, but how many cluebies read d-u?
>
> Everything should be in the NEWS file.
>
> Anyway clubies could still ask someone who knows (whatever the OS is).
If, for example, X is broken (which can and did happen), how is he
supposed to write to d-u? I cant imagine the average cluebie to be able
to use TUI mailers.
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)
Reply to: