Software repository question

[Ioannis Vranos]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Leo "TheHobbit" Cacciari
<leothehobbit at gmail.com> wrote:
> Il 05/24/2011 07:49 PM, dave boland ha scritto:
>
>> [...snip..]
>> I agree it is getting easier, and I understand some of the challenges of
>> keeping packages updated for all distributions.
>>
>> However, there is no point in having LTS versions if we have to live
>> with outdated software.  Yes, there are some ways around that -- PPA's,
>> GetDeb, etc.  But they are just that -- workaround solutions.  I do
>> disagree that it should be a problem.  APT (as was well pointed out) can
>> resolve dependency issues very well.  All that seems (to my limited
>> visibility) to be done is to test the newer app on each current
>> distribution of Ubuntu prior to releasing to the repository.
>>
>> The conundrum for LTS users is that we like not having to do complete
>> upgrades every six months, but there are going to be times when a newer
>> version of an app is needed -- bug fix, feature that is important,
>> better performance, or some sort of external requirement.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave
>
> No. Or at least this is not the rationale behind LTS as I understand it.
> The rationale is having a _stable_ release, i.e. one that do mot change
> every two days :) This is a must in some production systems. Just as an
> example, recent Net Snmp version introduced a binary incompatibility for
> 64 bit systems, where you could have locally developed libraries stop
> working. If on a critical 64bits system the net-snmp library where
> changed only because it is upgraded upstream then the system could stop
> doing its job, and this is definitely *not* a god thing. In this
> specific case, and in other similar ones, the answer «you should know
> what you do when you upgrade" is wrong. The binary incompatibility was
> discovered _weeks_ after the release of net snmp.
>
> When a new Ubuntu (or any other distribution, of course) release is
> produced, there is a "freeze" status, in which the versions of shipped
> software are not changed any more and everything is checked (or should
> be) for problems and problems are solved. The complete bunch is released
> (or again should be released) only when no more problem remain.
>
> Doing an upgrade on a production system requires checking that your own
> software, the one you developed and installed, the add-on and
> configuration of installed software etc, that all this still works with
> the new releases. This is not simply "a bother", its (often) a
> nightmare! More to the point, is a *costly* process, thus people using
> Ubuntu in production systems (like myself) like to have this done only
> every some years rather than every six month and still have a system
> that *works as expected*.


Just a note, in the case of regular, non-LTS Ubuntu releases, the user
doesn't have to change every 6 months, he can use the release and its
stability, for 18 months.



-- 
Ioannis Vranos

http://www.cpp-software.net