On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 00:06, Keith G. Murphy wrote: > Simo Sorce wrote: > > That's fine with development versions, but samba stable is ... well ... > > stable :-) > > > There's (at least) three other things involved here, though: > > * Because upstream (samba developers) say something is stable may not be > good enough for Debian team, since they have to stand behind it > * Some of the testing is on the Debian package itself: how well does it > integrate into Debian, etc. > * Debian is not one entity, but a group of developers; if the Samba > maintainer were allowed to shove a new package into stable, that might > be OK; but other developers would want to do the same thing, and, sooner > or later, stable would get a showstopping problem. > > I would say that third reason is really important. Stated another way, > because Debian is very loosely organized, no one person can decide what > can/cannot go into stable; therefore it is governed by policy, which had > to govern everyone, and therefore errs on the cautious side. > > Does that make sense? If you don't like this sort of loosely organized > team, which has political problems, you might like another distribution > better. With a whole other set of problems. :-)
You got me wrong, I'm perfectly fine with debian, and use it with much joy. I do know debian only vaguely, just I see that sometimes it is really very slow, 10 months is really a lot of time without an upgrade. I'm ok with good scrutiny, but it seem that samba has been forgotten this time :-) Simo. -- Simo Sorce - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xsec s.r.l. via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
