Karmic 9.10 new kernel BAD!

[Christopher Chan]

Avi Greenbury wrote:
> Leonard Chatagnier wrote:
>   
>> If there is anything worth contributing, it may be my opinion that
>> there should updates/upgrades to 'broken' packages in Hardy (what's
>> the point of a LTS again?) such as pidgin not talking to Yahoo or
>> Open Office not opening docx files.
>>     
>
> The LTS bit refers to support, and has no necessary bearing on
> stability.
>   

Never mentioned stability. Yeah, I know LTS = Long Term Support.

> I'd expect an LTS to be three years of stability (in the
> unchanging sense of the word), and would expect people who want new
> features and changing software to upgrade to the new distros. Surely
> the point of releasing non-LTS is to keep the people who like frequent
> upgrades and featureset changes happy?
>   

I still fail to see why I should upgrade to a new distribution to get 
something that is non-core operating system wise and therefore does not 
required that you test every package that uses it. Neither pidgin nor 
OpenOffice have that many if at all any packages that depend on them. An 
upgrade of OpenOffice will not require extensive testing to make sure 
nothing breaks.

> I wouldn't expect an LTS to keep version parity with newer,
> shorter-term releases, because then it *is* those releases and is no
> longer an LTS.
>
>   


Right, even if a package is no longer usable because it is too old and 
it is not something that is like a foundation as some packages like 
glibc are. Redhat adds new features let alone 'features' or at least 
backport code to older versions of software of fixes in newer versions 
to RHEL. That, in my opinion, is what a useful LTS definition is. Core 
packages do not or rarely get upgrades/backports while 'end user' 
packages will be upgraded as is necessary and possible.