| 1 |
On 12/14/2017 09:21 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: |
| 2 |
> It seems like lagging stability is due to a lack of resources. I do |
| 3 |
> not know a single person who would be able to run only stable |
| 4 |
> packages. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I run stable only on most of my systems. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> They seem to move too slowly, and people switch to unstable |
| 9 |
> packages because they contain bugfixes and sometimes new features. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
slow isn't necessarily a problem, as long as security fixes are handled. |
| 12 |
There is some balancing for large performance gains, but most existing |
| 13 |
systems are scaled based on the current estimates so it would only be |
| 14 |
relevant for the up sizing of the server park for growth needs etc. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Could the criteria for stability be reconsidered? Mixed systems might |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
why would it? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> not be supported, but save for cases of ABI/API breakage (which can |
| 22 |
> happen when transitioning from stable->stable) I do not know why the |
| 23 |
> packages would not play well with each other. I am sure there are |
| 24 |
> examples where things have blown up, but it seems like expecting that |
| 25 |
> to be the case isn't helping. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
There are plenty of cases where this fails in miserable ways, so thats |
| 28 |
not a good idea (not to mention the dependency hell from it). That said, |
| 29 |
you can have a stable chroot, or just use a VM for testing etc. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 33 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 34 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives