Dear all, I'm grateful for your comments on this thread. I've learned about a few parts of the Debian system I wasn't aware of before (volatile/sloppy) and have been pleased to see a range of perspectives, including from upstream of the distro.
A number of comments missed my main point, which was: When 'stable' packages don't work, or are inadequately documented, it's a pain because the upstream developers (who are otherwise often the first port of call for help and documentation) may no longer support the version of the software that the stable package installs. It's this support/usability gap that I feel needs addressing in a more concerted way when distros take on the commitment of accepting a package. In my original post, I made some vague suggestions about how that might be done, and I'd ask any upstream or downstream maintainers reading this to consider their relationships with their counterparts, and whether modifications to the package acceptance/maintenance procedures might improve those relationships and mitigate the gap I've referred to. If so, I'd encourage you to propose those amendments to procedure, for the community's consideration. (And finally, I'm sorry to have taken so long replying - it's been a busy period for me...) Many thanks to all who've read or replied to this thread*, Sam *Aside from the troll Robert Caruso, who I hope for all our sakes has finally managed to spell "unsubscribe" and remove himself from the debian-user list.
