Tim Hull wrote: > Yes, you CAN upgrade individual system components on Debian (or any > Linux/UNIX), but it's not really that simple, as you can't, for > instance, download "Debian etch" .debs of Xorg 7.2 (for instance). > > Also, with my suggestion with respect to point releases - I don't mean > backporting *everything* - mainly the components that improve hardware > support (the kernel,Xorg, etc). I actually don't mind the current > Debian release cycle - it's just the fact that often, the release can > be hard to use on newer hardware. > It is a good idea for possibility to install (and to be used during installation) more recent kernel during installation of stable branch. Before more than 1 year i could not install Sarge on DELL PowerEdge Server due an unsupported SATA RAID controller and i was forced to install testing - it was 7 months after Sarge release, but the server was bought before this date.
> > > On 7/27/07, *Kamaraju S Kusumanchi* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > 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 > > distribution. > > 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. > > hth > raju > > -- > Kamaraju S Kusumanchi > http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/ > http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >
