Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
Beyond Firefox 4.0: Handling an accelerated development cycle
Posted Mar 10, 2011 8:14 UTC (Thu) by viiru (subscriber, #53129)
It's not quite so simple. How does the distinction go with for example Firefox? It might seem to be an obvious case for "world" as it is a end user application. But is it? Let's take a quick look. On a Debian Squeeze system, there are 39 packages that depend on xulrunner (the rendering engine / user interface library of Firefox). You can't actually update Firefox without updating xulrunner, and if xulrunner is not fully backward compatible (it usually isn't), you may need to update the other 38 packages as well.
Some have claimed that Debian should ship an embedded copy of xulrunner with every depending package, but that just moves the problem to security updates (which are extremely frequent for our example case xulrunner), where instead of updating one package the security team needs to update all 39.
Does this help you see what the problem is?
Posted Mar 10, 2011 8:36 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
But then, of course, somebody would need to backport security fixes to the stable xulrunner, so it's not that simple.
Posted Mar 10, 2011 8:45 UTC (Thu) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148)
Ultimately, I think a more granular update policy makes a lot of sense, and not just in this case. There is no reason that the firefox, xul-runner, or Open Office versions need to be as stable as the kernel version, Xorg version, or DE version throughout the lifetime of a distro.
Posted Mar 11, 2011 1:18 UTC (Fri) by nicooo (guest, #69134)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds