On Thursday 21 December 2000 05:34, Ed Wilts wrote:
> In my opinion, they have thought about it. Now it's time for YOU to think
> about it. A Mandrake Linux release is a tested, integrated release.
> You're making the silly assumption that each package is totally
> independent, and this is incorrect (bullshit using your terminology). The
> new glibc is also a stable release, but they can't release it for 7.2
> without upgrading the rest of the packages. XFree also doesn't stand alone
> - look at all the other packages that are dependent on X!
A lot of packages aren't dependent on other packages, take kde for example,
an upgrade in the 2.*.* series isn't dependent on other stuff, it all uses
the same qt-libs and so on. Saying that they shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't give
us newer packages cause there's so much dependent on each package is....
using my terminology ;) .... bullshit. A lot of other distributions do
this, Suse, Red Hat, Debian, and those are just the ones that I know do this,
there's probably more of them..
> What Mandrake is saying is that they (and us) are testing a new collection
> of packages, and if all tests ok, we can expect 4.0.2 to be in the NEXT
> release. All the great dependency failures we report regularly, and bugs in
> packaging are all fixed before the final release goes out. At what point
> do you consider 4.0.2 stable? It's JUST hit Cooker! Just because the
> developer considers it stable doesn't mean it is. There may be
> interactions with other packages that would prevent it working properly in
> certain environments. That's what testing is all about. In many cases, you
> can't upgrade one package without also updating a bunch of others, even
> though it appears to be a single package (rpm is a good, simple example - I
> suspect at least a dozen packages rely on it or other packages that in turn
> rely on rpm).
Now you're just repeating what I've said before, we seem to agree to a
certain point here, it's just that we look at it with different views. I'm
saying that new packages (after a bit testing) should be available as soon as
possible for the latest stable distribution. Take kde 2.0.1 for example, on
the release date there were rpms for almost all distributions except
Mandrake. The packages were in the correct dirs, but were removed quickly
with a README file that stated that Mandrake would not release 2.0.1 packages
for 7.2 because they already had cvs packages of 2.1.0 available for cooker.
Are you serious in saying that this is the correct way to do this?
> Have I seen code that is claimed to be bug-free and considerably better and
> more stable than production code, yet caused systems to not boot? Yup, and
> not only Linux software gets credit for this.
>
> In no way is Mandrake preventing you from upgrading individual packages
> based on your individual needs. Mandrake sold (or gave) you a copy of 7.2
> that includes specific versions of packages. You're then responsible for
> your own testing and integration. They are making available, at no charge,
> security fixes for those packages in many of there current (and not so
> current) releases.
I'm not arguing about this. What I'm arguing about is that Mandrake seems to
"refuse" to release packages to the customers, while almost every other
distribution out there does this. This is starting to remind me more and
more about another software company.... without mentioning names..
--
\ Christian A Str�mmen /
\ Number1/NumeroUno @ Undernet - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /
\ Web: www.realityx.net - Cell: +47 911 43 948 /
� �Live your life by your dreams,
� � �not by the limits of reality...
