Christian A Strømmen [Number1/NumeroUno] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 20 December 2000 22:04, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> > We can't do everything.
>
> This is FAR from everything...
You're welcomed to quit this mailing list and go somewhere where people
approach the infinity better than us..
[...]
> > Think two minutes: what would you like to see in the updates? obviously,
> > for example kde-2, gnome-1.2, xmms-1.2.4, rpm-4, XFree-4, for older
> > distribs such as 7.0. This is an *enormous* amount of work, and, come on,
> > we release everything on the web very conveniently, so why not upgrading
> > or installing the 7.2..
>
> It's 7.2 I'm talking about!!! So what you're saying is that if I want to
> upgrade my system to the latest stable releases of products, and I want to
> use my distribtion-companies own rpm I have to use a unstable build of the
> whole dis (cooker, and yes, it is unstable!). This is bullshit, think about
> it. In one way you're saying that we (the customers) should install an MDK,
> never upgrade anything except if it's a security upgrade, and never get any
> new version of a program (even when the new version are a lot more stable)
> except for when the next release of the distribution is out... ?
If you wanna talk about 7.2 (and I'm sure that many people would like
upgrade of normal software for their 7.1 that they don't want to upgrade
to 7.2, etc, etc), there are two things you're missing: the first is that
during that time, we are busy doing many important things including
internal developments and longer-term moves such as the library new
policy, and we don't spend much time testing our packages (that's a bit of
the role of Cooker, to help us stabilize), therefore if we provided such
packages we would end up with unhappy customers, who would have upgraded
this or that package, and this would have broke their system; the second
thing you're missing is that once it's XFree, then it's that other
package, and this one too, etc: users would wonder why we provide that
package but not that other; we would end up with maintaining two branches
of packages, one for 7.2 and one for cooker, thus 7.2 would become a bit
like cooker, but with the exigence of stability we would spend all our
time verifying that the packages actually work..
--
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://us.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
