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]
