More updated package systems that are are independent of ubuntu versions

Avi Greenbury lists at
Tue Nov 6 16:17:11 UTC 2012

Peng Yu wrote:
> In that sense, shouldn't a core set of essential packages be defined
> for ubuntu as the core OS.

Perhaps. I'm intrigued, though - what is it here that's out-of-date
and what features are you missing?

> Other non essential packages as add-ons, so that they can be
> independently updated non matter what version the core OS is. If
> there were anything that the should be improved on ubuntu, this
> probably should be an important aspect to be improved.

You would, then, need to both maintain the full set of packages
supplied on release *and* keep the non-core set continually-updated,
and ensure compatibility between the two, which would be difficult.

It sounds like you're after a rolling-release distro rather than one
following the stable-release model that Ubuntu employs.

> I'm not sure who is directly in charge of this issue so that I can
> send the suggestion to.

It's a suggestion that crops up quite frequently, but I don't really
think there's much chance of Ubuntu dropping the stable-release model,
especially now that they're targeting businesses who would expect to
be able to predict the versions of software they're running while
getting security updates.


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list