But what about when bob wants to run unstable glibc(2.2.2) and jimmy
likes stable glibc(2.1.3)? There'd have to be stable/unstable/blah
packages for every major version of glibc which I suppose isnt that
many but it'd add up. I could be totally off base though.
--
Kevin - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
>> Ah, sorry. bigfoot is running unstable, actually. Some of my other
>>machines run testing, but I've got the unstable package repository in my
>>sources.list (and Default-Release "testing"; in /etc/apt/apt.conf, so
>>unstable doesn't get used by default, but I can install packages from it.
>>see apt-preferences(8). I just found this feature in apt a couple weeks
>>ago, and I love it. :)
> slightly off topic but..
> I always found this aspect of debian a little puzzling. Debian to me is a
> collection of packages. It makes sense that some of these packages would be
> "stable" and others would be experimental but it never made sense to me
> that just because you subscribe to stable you should be stuck with some
> ancient version of apache, mozilla or whatever.
> Ideally the packages themselves should be labled stable, milestone,
> snapshot (or something similar) and you ought to be able to subscribe to
> packages themselves. This way if you trust the authors of a package (say
> postgres) then you could subscribe to postgres snapshot, but if you are not
> so sure about mozzilla you could subscribe to mozilla milestone.
> Anyway back to your regularly scheduled programming.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Tim Uckun
> Mobile Intelligence Unit.
> ----------------------------------------------
> "There are some who call me TIM?"
> ----------------------------------------------
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
