More updated package systems that are are independent of ubuntu versions

Nils Kassube kassube at
Tue Nov 6 06:40:15 UTC 2012

Peng Yu wrote:
> In that sense, shouldn't a core set of essential packages be defined
> for ubuntu as the core OS. Other non essential packages as add-ons,
> so that they can be independently updated non matter what version
> the core OS is.

As long as it is optional, I don't see any  problem with your
suggestion. But if the newer version of those non-core applications
comes automatically through the standard updates, I would disagree. My
production machine should work the same for a long time (that's why I'm
still using 10.04 LTS). Otherwise some update might prevent me from
doing urgent work and I first have to find out how to overcome problems
with the new version of the application I need to do that work. So, as
long as there is only something like a notification that a new version
of an application is available, it would be OK. But it shouldn't be
installed without my approval. Then I would upgrade to the new version
if I know that I can spend some time to get used to the changes in the
new version. OTOH, I would usually decide that I don't need the new
features and keep the older version because it works good enough for me.

> If there were anything that the should be improved
> on ubuntu, this probably should be an important aspect to be
> improved. I'm not sure who is directly in charge of this issue so
> that I can send the suggestion to.

Have a look at this page:


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list