Re: User-contrib, up-to-date stable
edd@rosebud.sps.queensu.ca (Dirk Eddelbuettel) writes:
> Paul> Right! It is inacceptable to have to rely on slightly outdated
> Paul> software when running a system which has to stay reasonably stable
> Paul> and you do need this new version of package xyz existing in 'hamm'.
>
> That is nonsense, and not very polite to boot. For well over two years, I
> 'risked', among other things, my PhD dissertation by using 'unstable' as my
> sole computing platform --- which proved to be an extremely stable, reliable
> and productive computing environment to get not only that dissertation
> done. There is nothing wrong with using "unstable" if you want to be cutting
> edge. You risk what you called 'hazzles' and 'annoyances' by using *cutting
> edge upstream releases* anyway.
>
It completely escapes me why it should be nonsense to not want to take
the risk running a complete system in cutting edge mode when one only
needs to run a few up to date packages which would run regardless of
any cutting edge libc version on 'stable'. Please try to understand
how it is seeing this from the point of view of a non-developer and
how a typical only user might see the situation. A user is interested
in up to date versions of certain packages because they provide new
benefits and it is not reasonable at all to have to upgrade major
critical parts of an already well running system just for making a
package from 'unstable' work. From a user's point of view this should
be very understandable and not at all impolite. Not everybody is as
brave as you've obviously been! ;-)
> Furthermore, I do not accept that you call this 'unacceptable'. We are all
> volunteers, and we owe you nothing. Point.
>
Hey, you surely have the same right to disagree as i have and that's
what we luckily are able to share. Nobody owes me anything like i
don't owe anything to nobody either since my efforts are voluntarily
as well. Since you obviously chose to inappropriately introduce the
dialectic opposites of "we" and "you" i'd like to make clear that i
prefer including my and everybody else's efforts to be seen as *our*
efforts. Please don't rule me out with your wording. We are all
mainly interested in solutions. It's just that you seem to prefer
taking the developer's perspective and i definitely have a user's
perspective which is definitely not the same thing. Please don't
forget that it's about how to improve 'stable' with current software
we are speaking here in first place.
> What we need is to work on auto-compiling the distribution. That way, we can
> privide it all under different sets of parameters as libc version etc.
>
Sounds really nice but not everybody has the computer resources needed
to take advantage of such a beast. This is probably more a developers
playground than user space so for me this is no perspective at all.
Thanks for your input, P. *8^)
--
Paul Seelig pseelig@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de
African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies
Johannes Gutenberg-University - Forum 6 - 55099 Mainz/Germany
My Homepage in the WWW at the URL http://www.uni-mainz.de/~pseelig
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: