On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Tim Hull wrote:
ISTM, though, that you are missing the point of Stable.
http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-getting.en.html#s-updatestable
No new functionality is added to the stable release. Once
a Debian version is released and tagged `stable' it will
only get security updates. That is, only packages for which
a security vulnerability has been found after the release
will be upgraded. All the security updates are served through
security.debian.org.
Security updates serve one purpose: to supply a fix for a
security vulnerability. They are not a method for sneaking
additional changes into the stable release without going through
normal point release procedure. Consequently, fixes for packages
with security issues will not upgrade the software. The Debian
Security Team will backport the necessary fixes to the version
of the software distributed in `stable' instead.
This is how the people who make Debian want it to be. Ubuntu,
Fedora/RH or SUSE may be better suited to you.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
I understand the point of Debian stable - and I understand why most other
distros (beside RHEL and the other "enterprise" distros) use a 4-6 month
cycle. However, I don't see why this much be mutually exclusionary with
pulling selected updates down on an "as-needed" basis. On Windows and OS X,
one can easily update, say, OpenOffice.org or Firefox without updating the
whole system.
On Linux distributions, however, you either have to wait for the next distro
release (whether that be 4 months or 12 months) or use hackish solutions
only a Gentoo user could love. Of course, I could just use OS X (or
Windows) but that's not the point - I like the tweakability/freedom of
Linux, but I just want to be able to update, for instance, my kernel or ACPI
packages separate from my glibc and Xorg without leaving the realm of the
package system.
In any case, this is probably best reserved for the -devel list, as it has
gone outside the scope of my main question (how to make backports) and into
the realm of release cycles etc.
Isn't this what /usr/local/ is for? Maybe I'm missing something here
though. I often get packages that either aren't in stable/testing or are
just newer versions and place them there. It's never been too much of a
problem to deal with. I use to do this with FireFox when 2 was coming
out, I'd shove it into /usr/local/. On one of my laptops, before the
ipw2200 drivers were in the kernel, I had to roll my own kernels, get the
firmware and build it. But those are the prices of wanting to be on the
bleeding edge. I can't hold that against any distro for not having the
latest and greatest on anything. I don't expect them to. Esp on debian,
the maintainers have 40+ architectures to build for. Just looking at
unstable for the linux-image-2.6.22, theres 44 different builds for this.
That takes time, and I for one, am willing to wait a little bit for that
to make its way down to testing.
Jeff
-+-
8 out of 10 Owners who Expressed a Preference said Their Cats Preferred Techno.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
