[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       debian-devel
Subject:    Re: Bits from the RM
From:       Wouter Verhelst <wouter () grep ! be>
Date:       2003-08-20 13:17:21
[Download RAW message or body]

Op wo 20-08-2003, om 13:26 schreef cobaco:
> On 2003-08-20 12:36, Isaac To wrote:
> > >>>>> "cobaco" == cobaco  <cobaco@linux.be> writes:
> 
> > Why KDE cannot be used on servers (how about a X terminal server?  You
> > don't have to set it up?)
> not what I meant: off course it can be used on a server, so can the gimp, this 
> doesn't make the gimp server software does it? All I'm saying is that KDE, 
> when installed on a server is not a mission-critical piece of software. 

You're trying to say that it's impossible for an organization to install
some thousands of X terminals that all run KDE (which, of course, is
installed on the server)? Or do you just mean that in such a situation,
the users' desktops aren't mission critical?

Happy me, to not have to work where you work.

> Besides major bugs would've been filtered out by the kde release proces, and 
> minor bugs would not interfere with functioning of a server.

You can't know that. If the primary function of that server is 'to
support X terminals or diskless clients that run KDE', then KDE probably
is "quite" mission critical.

> > and why on stable you do not expect a stable KDE?  
> kde 3.2. will be the stable kde release come 8 december

It's hardly relevant for Debian how KDE manages its stable releases, is
it?

> >What I perceived: if you want an updated KDE, go run testing or
> > unstable.  If many people like a really updated KDE, one of them should act
> > up and package a CVS version in experimental.
> unless I'm completely mistaken the kde packagers commit there directly in kde 
> cvs.

That's not what's meant here.

[...]
> >And I don't mind Debian stable being marked as "always
> > having an outdated KDE".  It is supposed to work that way.
> While I agree it wouldn't be the end of the world, and it has certainly been 
> that way sofar, I most definately do _NOT_ agree that "it is supposed to work 
> that way".

Then I suggest you start maintaining KDE backports for stable, because
it most certainly is supposed to work that way. We don't provide updates
for stable; as such, the logical result is that stable becomes outdated.

> Stable having outdated software is an (undesired) side-effect from 
> keeping the stable release stable.  If we can have up-to-date software that 
> is also reasonably stable (again this is end-user software, not 
> server-software) this is better no? 

It depends on what you find most important. If stability is most
important, then no, it isn't. If being up-to-date is most important,
we'd be wasting our time with all this freezing anyway.

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a
full one, but there are plenty of dead experts." 
  -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]
-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]