When should a package be ubuntu-versioned?

[Stephan Hermann]

Hi Mike,

On Monday 02 January 2006 21:28, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 03:46, Ming Hua wrote:
> > IMHO this should be done by backporting/forward-porting, mixing binary
> > packages from different releases is just asking for trouble (let alone
> > mixing Debian and Ubuntu packages).
>
> Problems can arise, but usually it works.  Sometimes you need
> multiple library versions but that's not a problem - this isn't
> Windoze.  Testing will tell you what will work and what won't.
>
> We've been mixing versions for years.  For example, zebra was
> broken for several Redhat and Fedora releases so we carried the
> version from RH7.2 through RH7.3, RH8.0, and RH9.  We skipped the
> flaky FC1 and switched to quagga in FC2.
>
> Heck, we're still using several RH7.1 packages in FC3 and FC4
> installations.
>
> Ubuntu hasn't been around as long, but we already have situations
> which require a mix of Hoary, Breezy, and Dapper.  Plenty of other
> people do too ... that's why pinning was implemented in apt!

But this is not the correct way to go.

The correct way is: File bugs. If something isn't working in breezy but in 
hoary, for sure there is a patch missing or whatever. 
Instead of mixing different packages and screwing up production systems, it 
should be better, to test during development cycle, file bugs, as long we can 
fix them.

And "..., but usally it works" we saw some time ago with "Just backporting 
random packages without knowing the results".

Well, actually you are alone with the support of those systems. I don't think 
that neither Debian nor Ubuntu or any other distribution is supporting such a 
mess making.

Regards,

\sh