2009/7/27 Adrian Georgescu <[email protected]>: > Inaki, > > If this discusion took place two years ago you would have said the opposite > simply because the 'stable' distribution was so obsolete. Now the stable is > pretty much in sync (still) with unstable hence it seems a good idea to use > stable at this very moment. If we look again over 12 and 24 months, maybe > then we have a better measurement.
Why doesn't your software follow the clasic Debian policy? A software version 1.0 is chosen and frozen for the current Debian stable version. The software development remains in testing/unstable branches. When a new Debian stable version arrives, software version 1.1 is frozen for it. Also, backports exist to provide modern features in the stable version. I cannot imagine why the above policy is not suitable for AG products, being them based basically on Python (so no really complex dependencies on C/C++ libraries). However, it's just my opinion :) Regards. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
