On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 01:41:47AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > On 6/19/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of 596 "lib" packages in woody (loosely identified), 325 are still > > present in sarge. That's after three years of more or less constant > > development. Where did you come up with this absurd idea that all binary > > packages "of any great complexity" will become uninstallable after only six > > *months*?
> The examples that come to mind immediately are those with substantial > components in both native code and an interpreted or bytecode > language, such as Perl XSUBs and Python extensions. Yes, these are specific examples of packages that will be rendered uninstallable in unstable by an ABI change on a particular package. Your claim was that *all* packages "of any great complexity" would be uninstallable after six months. And while perl XSUBs from woody are not installable in sarge, python extensions from woody *are* generally installable in sarge (for reasons we shouldn't be particularly proud of, but still). > And what are the odds of my tweaked Python profiler, built to divert > individual files within the Python library tree, working with sid's stock > Python build come December? A pathological case if ever I heard one... > The next example to pop into my head is the Midgard content management > framework, which involves both an Apache module and piles of PHP code. > The chances of a binary package built on sarge installing (let alone > working) against next year's apache and php packages in sid probably > aren't that high. Which still doesn't prove a claim that *no* packages will be installable after six months. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
