On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 12:24, Gavin McCullagh wrote: > On Mon, 09 May 2005, Herman Robak wrote: > > > Could we agree on a small infrastructure, like the > > installer, the kernel and X? And maybe a few more > > libraries and daemons that communicate directly with > > the hardware? "Base + drivers"? > > This is an interesting idea. I think keeping up with hardware is an > important problem with the long release cycle. > > Another is interoperability. The first example that comes to mind is > OpenOffice. It seems to be a thing that many people use backports of, > I know I do.
Now how do we provide those newer versions, and ensure a clean upgrade path from official apt sources? We should abhor the "use at your own peril" versions in production environments. Could we offer backport repositories that promise to track the official releases? A backport that is not just tested to work NOW, but also will come out with a new version based on the next release if necessary. Say, if OOo-backport-Woody is version 2.1-1 and OOo- official-Sarge is version 1.2-3, then a OOo-backport-Sarge with version 2.1-2 is needed. OOo-backport-Sarge must upgrade cleanly from OOo-backport-Woody 2.1-1 _and_ OOo-official-Sarge. -- Herman Robak -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
