Op 04-10-13 14:16, Emmanuel Thierry schreef: > > Hello, > > Le 4 oct. 2013 à 13:39, Demetris Demetriou <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> Hi all, long time reader, first time responder. > > Me too ! > >> IMHO this backporting, support of version 0.001 etc. etc. should be >> dropped. Linux is already the mess it is with all the developer >> fragmentation. Don't like the way the file menu is? Fork the >> program and take a couple of the best developers with you, teaching >> them to hate the people they used to work with and you are done. >> It's the GPL way! >> >> Security fixes should NOT be patches affecting old code, but >> instead a security fix found by someone should be pushed upstream >> to be incorporated in a newer upstream release. I understand the >> need to support extremely old versions of software. After all it >> makes a lot more sense to have 10 developers patching old code so >> that person X can run Linux on his old Pentium (1) machine, than to >> spend the 400 euros to get a brand new laptop that's able to run >> newer software versions. Never mind the used computers available at >> better prices. Spending your money is always a bad thing, therefore >> developers should invest their time scratching their head on how to >> support your outdated software. Do I really need a sarcasm >> disclaimer in this post? I guess so, since this IS the facebook >> generation. This paragraph is pure sarcasm. In no way should >> developers be forced to maintain old code. >> >> (…) > > I think ArchLinux is made for you ! :) > > > About the initial topic, the problem i see is that Debian may operate > both as a desktop or as a server (among other usages), and people > usually don't have the same needs for both usages : * Most of people > i know who use Debian as a desktop use the testing repositories. They > want to be up to date with newest versions. (For this usage, i > personally prefer a Ubuntu desktop) * Most of people i know (me > either) who use Debian as a server use the stable repositories. They > want to have a secure, stable, and almost deterministic system. For > my Debian servers, i personally don't want to have backports > pre-configured, because i'm ok with old but very-stable versions of > apache, php, mysql, unbound, nsd, postfix, dovecot and so on. And i > know it won't break nor change its behavior all along the life of the > distribution.
My opinion about the server-use is the same, but I also like stable on desktops. Backports is not used by default. Only when you ask explicitly for a backport you get it. Something like: apt-get -t squeeze-backports install ... See: http://backports.debian.org/Instructions/ An exception is when a package is only available in backports, or when a package from backports is installed (then you get upgrades from backports for that package). You will never get e.g. a new Apache from backports when you don't want it. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. > I think the reflexion about this topic should consider these distinct > usages. > > Best regards. Emmanuel Thierry > > -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
