Re: Need newer software that included with stable (that isn't at backports.org)
Tim Hull wrote:
> On a side note, I will say that the one area I think FOSS lags behind
> Windows and Mac is in updating individual system components. I LIKE being
> able to update a few things without hackish solutions (i.e. build from
> source tarballs) or updating my whole system. You can do it easily on
> Mac/Windows, but it's quite difficult and unreliable on nearly every
IIUC, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Think of it this way. If the glibc (and certain similar packages) is not
upgraded, then installing individual packages is possible even in Linux (be
it via stable or via backports). This is the kind of situation you have in
windows/mac etc., where the core system is not upgraded (you always run
windows XP) and you install additional software on top of it. This is what
backports try to do. From your email, I assume you are well aware of its
functionality and limitations.
> I think Debian really ought to look into making backports
> an official project and integrating it into the stable release as a way to
> get updates on an as-needed basis.
Making backports official would be a good idea. However if it delays the
release of next stable branch, then I am not a big fan of it.
> It may even be an interesting idea to do
> point releases of stable with some backports included.
What about security support? Windows/Mac do not provide any security support
for all the individual packages that a user installs. Having official
backports or point releases as you call it is useless unless there is
security support. I think providing security support for all the point
releases needs quite a bit of man power.
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi