Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I agree. I think stable should be able to get more fixes and updates > than just security fixes. It's well known that much of the software in > stable is quite buggy and years behind the upstream source (Mozilla M18, > for example) but cannot be fixed until a security hole is found in that > software. I think regular points releases, every month or two, > containing new software and updates to older software, would be great. > No major changes would be permitted of course, but there's no reason > most desktop software couldn't be updated in stable.
This came up on debian-devel not too long ago. Someone proposed a "point release" to woody that would have gcc-3.1, GNOME 2.0, new KDE, and "no major changes to the distribution" -- even though this would require recompiling everything with a relatively untested compiler, and presenting a relatively untested desktop environment to new users. Sure, it's good PR to have a "release" with ooh-new-and-shiny components, but it's less clear that it'll actually *work*, which should be the point. (There's also the problem that each of the developers has their own personal pet packages that they'd really like to make the "point release", but it can't happen for everyone's packages, and someone needs to make the decision. Hypothetically, to pick one of my packages, there could be a new lm-sensors release. I say, "it's important because it supports 17 new temperature sensor chips!" But, it includes libsensors2, which replaces libsensors1 and affects three or four other packages; is it a "major change" or not?) -- David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/ "Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal." -- Abra Mitchell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
