On Friday 28 December 2001 14:53, Jacob Meuser wrote: > On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 11:16:14AM -0800, Mark Bigler wrote: > > On Friday 28 December 2001 10:07, Justin Bengtson wrote: [...]
> Lets see here ... OpenBSD has a stable release every six months ... > That is, a stable release (depending on how you define "stable > release", they could be argued to be *more* stable than Debian's > releases) that includes new and updated software, and new hardware > support. Different definitions of stable. For Debian everything, directory structures, library dependencies, documentation paths, whatever you can think of, remains stable (i.e. doesn't change). If you've done custom work against Debian Potato, it's very unlikely that doing a security or bug fix update will ever break it. And, if it does, Debian considers that breakage a bug on their part and will fix it. However, when stable changes from Potato to Woody (i.e. on a new point release, say from 2.2 to 2.3), you may have to revisit your work. > > I would very much like to see a Debian branch, say "wobbly," that > > had a full release complement of "boot floppies," etc. that were as > > fresh and bug free as possible (remember too that nothing even > > makes it into the testing branch unless it builds for _all_ > > supported Debian architectures). > > OpenBSD officially supports six (x86, macppc, sparc, sparc64, alpha > and vax) architectures and, unofficially, I think another six. And, > of course, there's a new set of boot floppies for each release (and > you only need *one* to install). As an example, when a complier problem kept KDE from building for ARM processors, that held KDE back from the testing branch until the compiler for ARM was fixed. As to the install advantages to OpenBSD's approach, vive la differance!
