Re: Chromium 11 on Debian 6.0.1 Stable
On Wed, 25 May 2011 09:21:24 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <[🔎] email@example.com>, Camaleón wrote:
>>On Wed, 25 May 2011 08:50:56 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>> In <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>, Camaleón wrote:
>>>>browsers upgrade to a new version in just two months (!) and you are
>>>>left with an obsolete package for several years.
>>> "Obsolete" isn't the right term.
>>How would you call the Firefox 3.0.x branch? Legacy?
> I'd call 3.0.x deprecated but, I'd call 3.5.x stable. :P
But "deprecated" and "obsolete" are pretty the same. Should you have said
> I seriously don't trust upstreams, even the ones I depend on most. Far
> too many bugs are found and fixed between upstream release and Debian
> release for anything Mozilla (or KDE) produces to be called "stable".
I see it not as a matter of trust but convenience.
- Do I need Firefox 4.0.1? Nope, I don't need it. I'm a happy camper with
my 3.0.6 release.
- Do web sites force me to use an updated version of the applications
(plugins, web browser capabilities...)? Yes, they do. And I can't avoid
that if I want to use those sites and have a "normal life" in the web.
So regardless what I want or what I need there are external factors
(going beyond me) that require the usage of certain software (we all know
this, just have to look around and see that flash thingy...). I don't
have to agree with that, is just a fact that I have to deal with.
I understand Debian (and other distributions) policies regarding this but
people need a solution and have to find by themselves the better approach
to his situation, meaning that if the package is available under unstable
repos but there are hard dependencies that make very difficult to install
the application, what to do, how to proceed? It is a matter of time the
user will fall into Google's Chrome repo and get the package from there
to have "the lastest and greatest" version available without much hassle.