Re: sarge?

From: Silvan (dmmcintyr_at_users.sourceforge.net)
Date: 05/03/04

  • Next message: Bob Proulx: "Re: sarge?" 
    To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 20:05:07 -0400

    On Sunday 02 May 2004 02:20 pm, David Fokkema wrote:

    > > Well, I took "isn't supported by Woody" to mean a pure and proper Woody
    > > without backports.

    > You're right, of course. Right now, I'm trying to figure out if I like
    > the idea of woody with backports better than sid which broke some of my
    > stuff recently. Not my system, I can fix that. But the 'newer'
    > ghostscript 8 is far worse (as in unusable) than the latest ghostscript
    > 7, for example.

    It *is* a perennial problem. I ran Woody for a long time, but I'm a
    contributing developer for an application that has to run on KDE 3.x, with
    recent versions of automake and various other things. Everyone else is
    running SuSE or Mandrake, and they always have stuff two or five versions
    ahead of Woody. Keeping Woody backported was getting tedious. Backports of
    this and that aren't always compatible with each other in combination.
    "Woody: Backport Edition" almost qualifies as a distro unto itself, and IMHO
    it's far messier than present day Sid.

    In spite of the perpetual problem of choosing the best compromise between
    stability and having sufficiently recent versions of things to get the job
    done (or merely to satisfy a hankering for better eye candy), it's still more
    comfortable here than any other distro I've tried. Putting together a distro
    is a very hard job, and Debian does the job better than anyone. 

    -- 
Michael McIntyre  ----   Silvan <dmmcintyr@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek;  registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Bob Proulx: "Re: sarge?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: sarge?
      ... >> the idea of woody with backports better than sid which broke some of my ... > ahead of Woody. ... > it's far messier than present day Sid. ... > comfortable here than any other distro I've tried. ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: Debian and security/bugfixes/errata
      ... > Apache, PHP, ... > in a newer version of PHP that woody doesn't have, am I going to have to ... Another avenue not really discussed yet is "backports". ... You simply add the list of backport repositories to ...
      (comp.os.linux.setup)
    • Re: Debian and security/bugfixes/errata
      ... > Apache, PHP, ... > in a newer version of PHP that woody doesn't have, am I going to have to ... Another avenue not really discussed yet is "backports". ... You simply add the list of backport repositories to ...
      (comp.os.linux.misc)
    • Re: Debian and security/bugfixes/errata
      ... > Apache, PHP, ... > in a newer version of PHP that woody doesn't have, am I going to have to ... Another avenue not really discussed yet is "backports". ... You simply add the list of backport repositories to ...
      (comp.os.linux.security)
    • Re: Tarballs, backports... and dist-upgrade?
      ... > How will this affect the eventual dist-upgrade once sarge gets released? ... I believe that'll depend on the version numbers used by the backports. ... If they're numbered by appending something at the end of the woody ... then they'll be replaced by the sarge version. ...
      (Debian-User)