Hi, Paul: On Saturday 21 November 2009 00:36:12 Paul E Condon wrote: > On 20091120_212056, Jes?s M. Navarro wrote:
[...] > > Unfortunately? I'd better say "by design". Unstable/Testing is not > > there to provide a product to final users but to provide a testbed for > > software integration. If there's a problem with a software package you: > > a) Resolve it if it's a problem with the way Debian packages it. > > b) Wait for upstream to resolve the problem. > > > > I don't see how deriving away to those goals would be in benefit of > > anyone, even if you could count with enough hands to manage the task. I > > in fact find that too many times package maintainers are to "bland" > > regarding what their "real work" should be in that neither unstable nor > > testing is the testbed for *the programs* but for their packaging so I > > wouldn't send to unstable software known to be non-production ready > > (i.e.: KDE prior to 4.4 or even 4.5). > > Your position is commendable as an ideal way to operate Debian, but ... > In the real world, there a lot of people who are quite unaware of how > special Debian is Therefore the proper path of action is tell them what to expect. I think it's even in the Bible: teach the ignorant. > Without backports, these > people would be constantly nagging for a way to cross-install packages from > other distros. I won't buy that. Without backports *and* knowledge, maybe. Backports fill an important and interesting hole, but come to a price. Using third party packages (may) fill an important hole, but come to a price. It is both the responsibility and the advantage of the user to know how it is expected from them to use some tools and, anyway, what's the price they'll have to pay for them, so they can properly find the cost/benefit equation. No one is benefiting anyone by hiding the related costs of a choosing till it's too late. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
