Why is Synaptic version of Subversion not upgradeable?... and a question on forum mail handling

Thu Jul 30 12:05:20 UTC 2009

> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:02:20 -0500
> From: Andrew Farris <flyindragon1 at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Why is Synaptic version of Subversion not upgradeable?
> To: "Ubuntu user technical support,     not for general discussions"
>        <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
> Message-ID: <1248926540.22930.96.camel at BEC-LIN>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> 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
> _____________________________
>

Such a gentle rant is surely justified. I'm two weeks new to Ubuntu (Ubuntu
8.10 _Intrepid Ibex) and I just got Eclipse 3.4.1 up and running with the
awesome help of this forum and PPA repo (OK, and a few other sources)
despite the vanilla Ubuntu package only being 3.2. Subversion is next in
line since I need SCC for my development as well. Beats the hell out of
trying to get help in the MS world.

Now for a question...I have the message digest form of this list delivered
to my gmail. Any nifty method for replying to specific posts without cutting
and pasting each time?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20090730/7f502cbd/attachment.html>