Differences between revisions 8 and 9
Revision 8 as of 2005-01-08 02:25:24
Size: 2558
Editor: anonymous
Comment:
Revision 9 as of 2005-01-12 22:05:38
Size: 2645
Editor: anonymous
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 3: Line 3:
[POSSIBLE FIX: use alternative repositories (such as a application develeper's one).]

Pick a subset of Debian that is the core. Release the core only when it's ready, which should be more frequently than when all of Debian is ready. For the other stuff, users would have to [FIXME: do what?] [POSSIBLE FIX: use alternative repositories (such as a application develeper's one).]

Pros:

  • Shorter release cycles - don't have to wait for Gnome/KDE/insert-big-and-not-essential-package-of-choice-here.
  • Package pool could theoretically be reduced to a few megabytes.

Cons:

  • Users are on their own with most of the applications, since Debian's archive is de-facto reduced to just another pool with almost no QA (3rd party pools can do the same).
  • Security updates only for core packages, or the need for another security infrastructure (when and where to release security updates for non-core packages?).

Other thoughts: This could be combined with the ReleasePerSubsystem model, core would simply be a subsystem in this model.

This is basically what Ubuntu is doing. Ubuntu's main is a subset of Debian main. In addition, universe exists, which is the rest of Debian main. Universe does not receive security support or fixes. This works fairly well, but probably due to Debian fixing most serious problems in those packages.

See ReleaseProposals for alternatives.


As a user, I'd like to point out that one of the best things about Debian is that 99+% of the software I want is installable from the archive. Because of this, I can rely on it to play well with all the other software on my computer. Contrast the experience on distributions (e.g. Red Hat) where there is far less software in the official archive: one has to resort to 3rd-party package repositories all the time, and packages from those repositories frequently do not play well with each other or even the official packages.

I'd hate to see Debian develop such problems.

-- Zack Weinberg (happily tracking unstable since 1998)


This seems to me much like the Openbsd model - They have a core system that should be usable (by some definition of usable, of course) for most (by some definition of most, of course) purposes, and they have the ports. I was quite an enthusiast of OBSD for many years, until I realized that their main selling point -security above all- was completely thrown away when using their ports system.

Debian currently provides far better security support than OBSD. The reason that this model works for Ubuntu is that they have us all to back them. We cannot afford to lose our quality control in this way.

-- Gunnar Wolf

See ReleaseProposals for alternatives.