Why is Synaptic version of Subversion not upgradeable?

[Andrew Farris]

On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 21:42 -0500, bill walton wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 19:41 -0700, NoOp wrote:
> > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/subversion
> 
> Thank you.  It looks, from this, as though there might be a way out of
> this for me without completely disrupting our product development cycle.
> I appreciate the assistance.
> 
> Just for the record, many application developers, myself among them, are
> not Unix 'gods' and are just looking for a stable platform on which we
> can depend not to force us to break our delivery commitments just
> because MS, or whoever, says it's time to change.
> 

You dont have to be a Unix 'god' in order to keep your software up to
date. I don't seem to have any problems, and I'm not even a programmer,
let alone a guru of any kind (the linux FS structure still confuses the
hell out of me, for instance)

> The thing that brought me to Ubuntu a couple of years ago was something
> I read that said, I thought, that Canonical intended to make it the
> desktop of choice.  Perhaps I misread.  Seems from the comments here it
> must have said 'Linux desktop of choice.'  If that's all it aspires to,
> I can only ask, who in their right mind aspires to be the biggest
> midget?  It's a shame the package manager isn't better.  

Just to make something clear: As someone pointed out earlier, the
new-ness of the packages that are available through the package manager
are governed by 2 things-- 
    1. The Ubuntu Release cycle, and 
    2. The desire of a volunteer to package it 
(emphasis on part 2). As you may (or may not) know, just before a new
version of ubuntu is released (every 6 months), the features (and
software versions in the repos) are frozen, making them the 'only'
version available for that particular release, and from then on they are
only updated for severe bug-fixes, and security patches. This process
makes it easier to identify and fix bugs related to particular software
versions, and ensure that the software isn't introducing any security
vulnerabilities into the system.

However, as many people like to walk that bleeding edge with the
software they run, often times you will find that packages which receive
significant updates will be placed in the 'backports' repo. Enabling
this repo gets you closer to the current version of a lot of software,
and the packages are generally of release quality (I've never had an
issue with them). 

In addition, if that still isn't enough, then there are lots of special
package repos on launchpad for specific apps (including subversion, as
you have found) that you can simply add to your sources list to keep
specific software even closer to the wet edge of that knife, w/o
jeopardizing the other parts of your system (seems to be the solution
best tailored to your situation).

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), every
single package in any repo that gets uploaded, must also be re-compiled,
re-tested, and re-packaged by someone (a volunteer) that devotes some of
their free time to doing so.  Yes, this means that the software may be a
little out of date sometimes, but this is the price you pay for the
convenience of having someone else package it for you. 

The problem that you've encountered isn't, then, an issue with the
package manager. Rather, you've got an issue with the policies/practices
that keep the package manager populated with easy, convenient packages
for you to install. More volunteers to check/package software would fix
this 'issue,' but the fact of the matter is that the existing methods
for getting new software already meet or exceed the needs of the vast
majority of ubuntu's users. You can never expect to please /everyone/
(shouldn't stop you from trying), so the best you can do is please the
majority.

I mean really...do you have to be a 'unix god' to go into "system >
administration > software sources | updates > (check)Unsupported
updates(backports)"? this doesn't break your system, nor does it take
hours to upgrade.

Just as easy is the option to add a subversion repo to "3rd party
software" to keep this 'core development tool' of yours fully in-line
with the newest versions available. It's a one-time set up that takes
maybe 5min to do, and lets you stay completely hands-off till the repo
shuts down (presumably after several decades, or a few major releases).
I fail to see how this method is inferior to the MS way of doing
things. 

And regardless of the fact that subversion is a 'core development tool',
you have to keep in mind that not everyone that uses Ubuntu is a
software developer, so the vast majority of users will never need an
install of subversion that's up to date. 

I can understand your situation, but at the same time the Ubuntu
packaging policies serve a lot of good purposes(namely keeping your
platform stable and secure :))...and the alternatives (if the policies
don't work for you) aren't difficult to implement at all, so I don't see
where the snippy comments about having to be a 'unix god' to have
up-to-date software, that the package manager sucks, and the comments
concerning midgets were justified. Linux is the behind in the desktop
market for a lot more reasons than because 'the package manager could be
better'... and the other companies' 10-15 year head start, and enormous
marketing budgets (as opposed to little/no marketing for linux) are
probably pretty close to the top of that list. 

Sorry for the rant... I'm tired from work, your thread struck a cord in
my mind, and I couldn't let go. I'm not trying to offend or anything, i
just wanted to make my stance known...

so there :D



-- 
Andrew
_____________________________
Registered Linux User: 473690
Registered Ubuntu User: 22747