rick at linuxmafia.com
Fri Nov 4 22:09:09 MSK 2005
Quoting Mike Orr (mso at oz.net):
[GNOME, KDE, and Mozilla-derivs:]
> No, it wasn't those packages. Every six months or so there would be a
> package that said, "This depends on package Y (VERSION), but package Y
> (VERSION) does not appear to be available." On the devel list you'd
> read that package Y was held back or was waiting for the incoming
> processor to go through the backlog.
Sure: On Debian-unstable. You could still install the program in
question -- even on an -unstable system -- just not in a highly
automated version via apt-get: Instead, you'd open your ftp or Web
client to your favourite package archive and pull down the _prior_
package release from the same directory. Then "dpkg -i [foo]". Done.
People do tend to get spoiled by automation, lose perspective, and
forget that the less-automated ways still work, eh?
> This was with sid of course. I'm sure stable doesn't have that
> problem, but stable was unusable at the time because it was two years
> out of date.
Question: Why is it that non-Debian users who describe Debian
invariably haven't updated their calendars in five or more years? The
"testing" branch (and the "package pools" archive reorganisation that
made it possible) -- which you persist in not discussing -- came into
existence in _2000_. I mean, Linuxcare stock options were still
valuable, and like that.
Some systems I set up are pure Debian-unstable, since I've found over
the past eight years that the rare -unstable package bobbles have been
easy to fix, with about two exceptions that can be avoided if one is
smart enough to check either #debian or the debian-devel mailing list
archives for warnings, just before updating.
But most systems I set up and run are -testing with optional access to
-unstable packages, which is the regime I find most troublefree that
retains access to to cutting edge.
> But I would argue that Debian makes a lot of changes that seem good to
> the developers or implement some distro-wide policy, that aren't
> necessarily any better. Plus it makes the user think this
> distro-specific way is the normal way.
Every time I've thought that the Debian way of standardising some
package was too damned peculiar, _so far_, it's turned out that there
was a reasonable justification. Of course, all OSes suck, nonetheless.
;-> And I'm sure there are instances of Debian recto-cranial inversion
that just aren't coming to mind.
> Testing didn't exist during much of the time I used Debian.
Well, OK, but five years is a bloody long time by Linux standards.
More information about the TAG