"behan (b.) webster": "re:post-release package update policy" (Oct 23, 9:55): > Why do you need a specific "release" at all?
One reason is that people need to be able to refer to some specific set of software, instead of a rapidly moving target. For example, I write the System Administrators' Guide (well, more or less write). In the chapter on user administration, I might need to tell people which versions of which distributions have support for shadow passwords. Or in another chapter, I might need to tell people which versions support ELF. "The set of Debian packages in /foo/bar on ftp.debian.org in September, 1996 supported ELF" does not sound very good. Also, many people would like to have an unchanging system (except for _really_ important fixes), since that makes it easier to administer things. For them, it is simpler to just live with a few minor bugs, rather than get and install the newest version of each package every day. These people would like to have a fixed release. Sure, they could assemble it themselves (just collect a set of packages which seem to work well together, and use that), but that approach creates an impression of chaos. A fixed, clearly identified release makes life much easier for them. -- Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME and PGP mail welcome. Key: finger @kruuna, or check keyservers. Publib 0.5: ftp://ftp.cs.helsinki.fi/pub/Software/Local/Publib/
