* Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll @ 2010-06-14 12:37 Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-14 13:11 ` Georg Bauhaus ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-14 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw) I received this as part of a Debian Project News newsletter by email; I thought maybe some of you on comp.lang.ada might like to respond. This is only "slightly" off-topic since we talk a lot about Debian on this newsgroup :) Debian Community Poll --------------------- After getting the idea during the recent Mini Debian Conference [8] in Berlin, Torsten Werner prepared [9] a poll for users of the Debian Operating System [10] asking different types of questions like the usage of derivatives, about the Debian Free Software Guidelines [11] and firmwares and of course releases. 8 : http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Miniconf-LT-Berlin/2010 9 : http://twerner.blogspot.com/2010/06/debian-community-poll.html 10 : http://tinyurl.com/3y33ska 11 : http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines The Poll is available at http://tinyurl.com/3y33ska [12]. Torsten asks to spread the link to as many users as possible. 12 : http://tinyurl.com/3y33ska ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-14 12:37 Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-14 13:11 ` Georg Bauhaus 2010-06-14 14:01 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2010-06-14 19:13 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2010-06-14 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw) On 14.06.10 14:37, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > I received this as part of a Debian Project News newsletter by email; > I thought maybe some of you on comp.lang.ada might like to respond. > This is only "slightly" off-topic since we talk a lot about Debian on > this newsgroup :) > > Debian Community Poll > --------------------- > > After getting the idea during the recent Mini Debian Conference [8] in > Berlin, Torsten Werner prepared [9] a poll for users of the Debian > Operating System [10] asking different types of questions like the > usage > of derivatives, about the Debian Free Software Guidelines [11] and > firmwares and of course releases. > > 8 : http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Miniconf-LT-Berlin/2010 > 9 : http://twerner.blogspot.com/2010/06/debian-community-poll.html > 10 : http://tinyurl.com/3y33ska > 11 : http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines > > The Poll is available at http://tinyurl.com/3y33ska [12]. Torsten asks > to > spread the link to as many users as possible. > > 12 : http://tinyurl.com/3y33ska Is everyone aware that Debian politics will from then on refer to these market research results, if they can be called results? (I'm not saying I'm for or against it.) Incidentally, the survey is "Powered by Google Text & Tabellen" ... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-14 12:37 Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-14 13:11 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2010-06-14 14:01 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2010-06-14 14:13 ` Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-14 19:13 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2010-06-14 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw) Le Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:37:38 +0200, Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> a écrit: > The Poll is available at http://tinyurl.com/3y33ska [12]. Torsten asks Occasional users can fill the poll too or not ? From time to time, I use it on an USB drive and via Telnet for a server. As I don't know, I will not fill the poll unless you confirm it's OK. -- There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check. --# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho; --# assert Ada; -- i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion -- and start with new conclusion as premise. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-14 14:01 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2010-06-14 14:13 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-14 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw) Yannick Duchêne wrote on comp.lang.ada: > Ludovic Brenta a écrit: >> The Poll is available athttp://tinyurl.com/3y33ska[12]. Torsten asks > > Occasional users can fill the poll too or not ? > From time to time, I use it on an USB drive and via Telnet for a server. > As I don't know, I will not fill the poll unless you confirm it's OK. Since the poll is about various long-term issues with Debian (non-free software, release cycle) I would say: respond only if you use Debian, or one of its derivatives, regularly. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-14 12:37 Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-14 13:11 ` Georg Bauhaus 2010-06-14 14:01 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2010-06-14 19:13 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-14 20:46 ` Ludovic Brenta 2 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-14 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi Ludovic! As a Debian insider do you know the reason why Debian packages seem so outdated? It is not only gcc, I am packaging my stuff for Debian and to my amazement discovered that GtkSourceView is ancient. (Let's forget about apt used instead of rpm and yum (:-)) Is it Debian policy or lack of resources? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-14 19:13 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-14 20:46 ` Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-14 22:41 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-14 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes: > Hi Ludovic! > > As a Debian insider do you know the reason why Debian packages seem so > outdated? It is not only gcc, I am packaging my stuff for Debian and > to my amazement discovered that GtkSourceView is ancient. (Let's > forget about apt used instead of rpm and yum (:-)) (you're right, apt did automatic package dependencies long before yum even existed :) ) > Is it Debian policy or lack of resources? Which GtkSourceView package are you talking about and which version of Debian are you running? http://bugs.debian.org/558676 RM: gtksourceview -- ROM; old, superseded, unmaintained upstream http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/gtksourceview2 says the current version is 2.10.3-1; is that "ancient"? PS. Debian policy is to *always* build packages on unstable unless you want to fix a security bug in stable. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-14 20:46 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-14 22:41 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-14 23:25 ` Georg Bauhaus 2010-06-15 6:23 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-14 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:46:50 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Which GtkSourceView package are you talking about and which version of > Debian are you running? The latest one, fully updated: Distributor ID: Debian Description: Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.4 (lenny) Release: 5.0.4 Codename: lenny dpkg -l shows: libgtksourceview2.0-dev 2.2.2-1 Linking to it gives unresolved references: gtk_source_view_set_mark_category_background gtk_source_view_get_mark_category_background gtk_source_view_set_draw_spaces gtk_source_language_manager_guess_language > http://bugs.debian.org/558676 RM: gtksourceview -- ROM; old, superseded, unmaintained upstream > > http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/gtksourceview2 > > says the current version is 2.10.3-1; is that "ancient"? That could be better (by comparing version numbers (:-)), the only question is how to get at it. Update/upgrade does not help. > PS. Debian policy is to *always* build packages on unstable unless you > want to fix a security bug in stable. Yet gcc is still at 4.3. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-14 22:41 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-14 23:25 ` Georg Bauhaus 2010-06-15 8:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-15 6:23 ` Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2010-06-14 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:46:50 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > >> Which GtkSourceView package are you talking about and which version of >> Debian are you running? > > The latest one, fully updated: > > Distributor ID: Debian > Description: Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.4 (lenny) > Release: 5.0.4 > Codename: lenny > > dpkg -l shows: > > libgtksourceview2.0-dev 2.2.2-1 >> http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/gtksourceview2 >> >> says the current version is 2.10.3-1; is that "ancient"? > > That could be better (by comparing version numbers (:-)), the only question > is how to get at it. Update/upgrade does not help. 2.10.3-1 is from the "testing" distribution (sid). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-14 23:25 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2010-06-15 8:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-15 9:06 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-15 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:25:41 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:46:50 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: >> >>> Which GtkSourceView package are you talking about and which version of >>> Debian are you running? >> >> The latest one, fully updated: >> >> Distributor ID: Debian >> Description: Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.4 (lenny) >> Release: 5.0.4 >> Codename: lenny >> >> dpkg -l shows: >> >> libgtksourceview2.0-dev 2.2.2-1 > >>> http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/gtksourceview2 >>> >>> says the current version is 2.10.3-1; is that "ancient"? >> >> That could be better (by comparing version numbers (:-)), the only question >> is how to get at it. Update/upgrade does not help. > > 2.10.3-1 is from the "testing" distribution (sid). Yes, and? The things missing in the stable package of GtkSourceView are at least one year old. I am wondering why this key GTK package is so poorly packaged. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-15 8:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-15 9:06 ` Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-15 12:20 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-15 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw) Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote on comp.lang.ada: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:25:41 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: >> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:46:50 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: >>>> Which GtkSourceView package are you talking about and which version of >>>> Debian are you running? >>> >>> The latest one, fully updated: >>> >>> Distributor ID: Debian >>> Description: Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.4 (lenny) >>> Release: 5.0.4 >>> Codename: lenny >>> >>> dpkg -l shows: >>> >>> libgtksourceview2.0-dev 2.2.2-1 >>> >>>> http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/gtksourceview2 >>>> >>>> says the current version is 2.10.3-1; is that "ancient"? >>> >>> That could be better (by comparing version numbers (:-)), the only question >>> is how to get at it. Update/upgrade does not help. > >> 2.10.3-1 is from the "testing" distribution (sid). > > Yes, and? > > The things missing in the stable package of GtkSourceView are at least one > year old. I am wondering why this key GTK package is so poorly packaged. It is not a key GTK+ package (few other packages depend on it) and it is not poorly packaged. The only problem is your expectation that a 1.5-year-old stable (i.e. "long term support") distribution should contain packages that are less than one year old. If you want recent packages, you should use testing (like I do) or unstable. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-15 9:06 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-15 12:20 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-15 13:56 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-15 12:20 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote on comp.lang.ada: >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:25:41 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: >>> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:46:50 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: >>>>> Which GtkSourceView package are you talking about and which version of >>>>> Debian are you running? >>>> >>>> The latest one, fully updated: >>>> >>>> Distributor ID: � � � �Debian >>>> Description: � Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.4 (lenny) >>>> Release: � � � � � � � 5.0.4 >>>> Codename: � � � � � � �lenny >>>> >>>> dpkg -l shows: >>>> >>>> libgtksourceview2.0-dev 2.2.2-1 >>>> >>>>> http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/gtksourceview2 >>>>> >>>>> says the current version is 2.10.3-1; is that "ancient"? >>>> >>>> That could be better (by comparing version numbers (:-)), the only question >>>> is how to get at it. Update/upgrade does not help. >> >>> 2.10.3-1 is from the "testing" distribution (sid). >> >> Yes, and? >> >> The things missing in the stable package of GtkSourceView are at least one >> year old. I am wondering why this key GTK package is so poorly packaged. > > It is not a key GTK+ package (few other packages depend on it) and it > is not poorly packaged. If you build a GUI, an ability to render and edit texts is not always, but often, essential. Now I am not certain if other GTK parts are actual. There might be issues, e.g. older GTK versions had nasty problems with drop down windows. >The only problem is your expectation that a > 1.5-year-old stable (i.e. "long term support") distribution should > contain packages that are less than one year old. I indeed had this expectation. Staying under the shower of meaningless "security updates" and other mess, I hoped that some useful packages might get actualized as well. My fault. (:-)) > If you want recent > packages, you should use testing (like I do) or unstable. I will. Even GNAT GPL has shorter cycles. There should be a reason... -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-15 12:20 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-15 13:56 ` Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-15 14:59 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-15 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw) Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote on comp.lang.ada: >>> The things missing in the stable package of GtkSourceView are at least one >>> year old. I am wondering why this key GTK package is so poorly packaged. > >> It is not a key GTK+ package (few other packages depend on it) and it >> is not poorly packaged. > > If you build a GUI, an ability to render and edit texts is not always, but > often, essential. Now I am not certain if other GTK parts are actual. There > might be issues, e.g. older GTK versions had nasty problems with drop down > windows. That is correct but most applications that need to display text use widgets other than GtkSourceView, like e.g. GtkTextView or simply GtkLabel. GtkSourceView is, in fact, quite heavy and specialized. It might be exactly what you need but that only makes it a "key" widget for your particular application, not for all of GTK+ or GNOME. >> If you want recent packages, you should use testing (like I do) or unstable. > > I will. Even GNAT GPL has shorter cycles. There should be a reason... The reason for the 1-year release cycle of GNAT GPL is that it also serves for the GNAT Academic Program, so its release cycle matches that of university curricula, i.e. 1 year. The release date (May-June each year) is, in fact, intended to make it easy for professors to migrate to the latest version while preparing their courses for the next year to begin in September. The reason for the longer life cycle of Debian is to match the expectations of conservative server administrators. They buy a new server and install Debian N on it and do not want any changes in the software except, reluctantly, for security bugs. 3 or 4 years later they buy a new server, install Debian N+1 on it, migrate their data and scrap the old server. After each stable release of Debian, they receive one year of security support for the previous stable release, so they can plan their server upgrades. Since you are neither an academic nor a conservative server administrator, as an individual user administering only your own machine, you have no reason to lock yourself into a release cycle at all; you can upgrade as seldom or as often as you want to. As a developer of a future Debian package, you however must build on unstable; hence my suggestion to use whatever you want as a user and an unstable chroot for your Debian packaging. Since we're now way (as opposed to "slightly") off-topic on comp.lang.ada, I suggest we followup on debian-ada@lists.debian.org. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-15 13:56 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-15 14:59 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-15 15:30 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-15 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote on comp.lang.ada: >>>> The things missing in the stable package of GtkSourceView are at least one >>>> year old. I am wondering why this key GTK package is so poorly packaged. >> >>> It is not a key GTK+ package (few other packages depend on it) and it >>> is not poorly packaged. >> >> If you build a GUI, an ability to render and edit texts is not always, but >> often, essential. Now I am not certain if other GTK parts are actual. There >> might be issues, e.g. older GTK versions had nasty problems with drop down >> windows. > > That is correct but most applications that need to display text use > widgets other than GtkSourceView, They might implement their own. I suppose that GPS does this. But it has very complex ones. For an average end user GtkSourceView is the best available solution in terms of functionality/implementation expenses. > like e.g. GtkTextView or simply > GtkLabel. GtkSourceView is, in fact, quite heavy and specialized. GtkSourceView is built on top of GtkTextView in order to replaces it. GtkTextView is barely usable as a text renderer/editor. As for being heavy-weight, this argument makes little sense because text buffer and text view load the whole file. So it is heavy from the start per design. GtkSourceView maybe worsen that (due to use of regex patterns), but who cares in these days and under UNIX!? >>> If you want recent packages, you should use testing (like I do) or unstable. >> >> I will. Even GNAT GPL has shorter cycles. There should be a reason... > > The reason for the 1-year release cycle of GNAT GPL is that it also > serves for the GNAT Academic Program, so its release cycle matches > that of university curricula, i.e. 1 year. I don't believe that is the reason. (Even if AdaCore would say so. (:-)) > The reason for the longer life cycle of Debian is to match the > expectations of conservative server administrators. They buy a new > server and install Debian N on it and do not want any changes in the > software except, reluctantly, for security bugs. 3 or 4 years later > they buy a new server, install Debian N+1 on it, migrate their data > and scrap the old server. That answers my question! Outdated packages is Debian policy. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-15 14:59 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-15 15:30 ` Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-15 16:44 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-15 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw) Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> The reason for the longer life cycle of Debian is to match the >> expectations of conservative server administrators. They buy a new >> server and install Debian N on it and do not want any changes in the >> software except, reluctantly, for security bugs. 3 or 4 years later >> they buy a new server, install Debian N+1 on it, migrate their data >> and scrap the old server. > > That answers my question! Outdated packages is Debian policy. Not policy; just a consequence. Also, that depends on the definition of "outdated". To a conservative server administrator, a 3-year-old package can be perfectly up-to-date if it serves its purpose and has no security bug; this is their choice, not yours. Please do not impose your definition of "outdated" on everyone else and do not disparage the hard work that Debian Developers put in quality control. You, an Ada software engineer, should know better than "the latest is always the greatest". You deleted the other half of what I said, so I'll paste it here for reference: >> Since you are neither an academic nor a conservative server >> administrator, as an individual user administering only your own >> machine, you have no reason to lock yourself into a release cycle at >> all; you can upgrade as seldom or as often as you want to. As a >> developer of a future Debian package, you however must build on >> unstable; hence my suggestion to use whatever you want as a user and >> an unstable chroot for your Debian packaging. This second half was for you, Dmitry, and I am a bit sad that you chose to ignore it. Please re-read it aloud, slowly. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-15 15:30 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-15 16:44 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-16 6:13 ` Stephen Leake 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-15 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:30:59 -0700 (PDT), Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Please do not impose > your definition of "outdated" on everyone else and do not disparage > the hard work that Debian Developers put in quality control. Outdated = not current, obsolete. > You, an > Ada software engineer, should know better than "the latest is always > the greatest". True, but it is up to the authors, in this case of GtkSourceView, to decide what is "greatest" and what is stable. >>> Since you are neither an academic nor a conservative server >>> administrator, as an individual user administering only your own >>> machine, you have no reason to lock yourself into a release cycle at >>> all; you can upgrade as seldom or as often as you want to. As a >>> developer of a future Debian package, you however must build on >>> unstable; hence my suggestion to use whatever you want as a user and >>> an unstable chroot for your Debian packaging. > > This second half was for you, Dmitry, and I am a bit sad that you > chose to ignore it. Please re-read it aloud, slowly. I cut it, because there was no need to comment it. It would be off-topic to dispute over conservatism, why Ada users are more conservative than server administrators, who are the target customers of Linux distributions. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-15 16:44 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-16 6:13 ` Stephen Leake 2010-06-16 7:36 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2010-06-16 6:13 UTC (permalink / raw) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:30:59 -0700 (PDT), Ludovic Brenta wrote: > >> Please do not impose >> your definition of "outdated" on everyone else and do not disparage >> the hard work that Debian Developers put in quality control. > > Outdated = not current, obsolete. "not current" is _not_ the same as "obsolete"! "not current" means "there is a later version" "obsolete" means "there is absolutely no reason to use this package". If the FTP package in Debian Lenny allows you to transfer files between machines, it is not "obsolete". The fact that the FTP package in Debian Squeeze has a couple more minor features does not change that fact. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-16 6:13 ` Stephen Leake @ 2010-06-16 7:36 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-16 7:36 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 02:13:11 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes: > >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:30:59 -0700 (PDT), Ludovic Brenta wrote: >> >>> Please do not impose >>> your definition of "outdated" on everyone else and do not disparage >>> the hard work that Debian Developers put in quality control. >> >> Outdated = not current, obsolete. > > "not current" is _not_ the same as "obsolete"! > > "not current" means "there is a later version" Yes. Outdated may mean either. (Comma in dictionary definitions means "or") > "obsolete" means "there is absolutely no reason to use this package". No. Obsolete is not current, not belonging to the present time, out of use, out of date, unfashionable. That does not automatically imply anything about whether you should or not use it. E.g. I must use the obsolete GNAT under Linux, because there is no newer one. > If the FTP package in Debian Lenny allows you to transfer files between > machines, it is not "obsolete". The fact that the FTP package in Debian > Squeeze has a couple more minor features does not change that fact. Ada 83 is obsolete Ada 95 is not current (:-)) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-14 22:41 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-14 23:25 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2010-06-15 6:23 ` Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-15 7:22 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-15 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:46:50 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > >> Which GtkSourceView package are you talking about and which version of >> Debian are you running? > > The latest one, fully updated: > > Distributor ID: Debian > Description: Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.4 (lenny) > Release: 5.0.4 > Codename: lenny > > dpkg -l shows: > > libgtksourceview2.0-dev 2.2.2-1 OK, that's Debian 5.0 "Lenny" which was released in February 2009. No wonder the packages in it are > 1.5 years old. > Linking to it gives unresolved references: > > gtk_source_view_set_mark_category_background > gtk_source_view_get_mark_category_background > gtk_source_view_set_draw_spaces > gtk_source_language_manager_guess_language > >> http://bugs.debian.org/558676 RM: gtksourceview -- ROM; old, superseded, unmaintained upstream >> >> http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/gtksourceview2 >> >> says the current version is 2.10.3-1; is that "ancient"? > > That could be better (by comparing version numbers (:-)), the only question > is how to get at it. Update/upgrade does not help. > >> PS. Debian policy is to *always* build packages on unstable unless you >> want to fix a security bug in stable. > > Yet gcc is still at 4.3. Feel free to continue using stable as your main system; you can either upgrade it to unstable or install unstable in a chroot, see [1]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-ada/2010/02/msg00003.html If you want to upgrade your main system instead, there is an Ada-specific recipe for that in the upcoming Debian Policy for Ada (Fifth Edition) which I'm about to publish in a few days (I'm waiting for the availablility of GNAT GPL 2010): http://green.ada-france.org:8081/revision/file/77ab86dc2e38b0012c38bae2d61dd134d2c1db70/debian-ada-policy.texi Look for "In-place upgrades". -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll 2010-06-15 6:23 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2010-06-15 7:22 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-06-15 7:22 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:23:13 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Feel free to continue using stable as your main system; you can either > upgrade it to unstable or install unstable in a chroot, see [1]. > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-ada/2010/02/msg00003.html Thank you for the information. I will try this. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-06-16 7:36 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-06-14 12:37 Slightly OT: Debian Community Poll Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-14 13:11 ` Georg Bauhaus 2010-06-14 14:01 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2010-06-14 14:13 ` Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-14 19:13 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-14 20:46 ` Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-14 22:41 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-14 23:25 ` Georg Bauhaus 2010-06-15 8:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-15 9:06 ` Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-15 12:20 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-15 13:56 ` Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-15 14:59 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-15 15:30 ` Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-15 16:44 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-16 6:13 ` Stephen Leake 2010-06-16 7:36 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-06-15 6:23 ` Ludovic Brenta 2010-06-15 7:22 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox