On 03/09/13 11:40, slowfranklin wrote:
This argument would effectively prevent any major version upgrade in unstable, because for every upgrade someone may have concerns.
That simply not true. If you must have colliding binaries, you can keep two packages at different versions, one marked incompatible with the other.
Of course, they must have different names, but that's a detail.
You're tracking an unstable catalog. The lack of a stable catalog is bad enough off itself, but if we let that influence too much the way we add packages to the unstable catalog, we make things worse, not better.
Actually, thinking about it, I'm starting to believe that only "unstable" and "experimental" should be kept, the former renamed to something more neutral. Resources are stretched too thin. Can we maintain a "stable" repository? Look at how many people are active here. A dozen? With a huge responsibility on a handful, Dago, Maciej, Bonivart, Yann? The popularity of Solaris is not growing. We've got to plan with the current resources. Looking at Fedora, at Debian for inspiration is good. Trying to do exactly as they do is not.
As I was trying to explain repeatedly, it is NOT started at boot. It refers to the `samba' binary.
Yes, I got that. So you mean, right now, you need to run that samba command manually, and later, you will have an SMF for it? Did I get it correctly now? Or am I still too dense? :-)
Laurent _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list maintainers@lists.opencsw.org https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
