New debian-mentors Public .deb Repository Available 33
JohnKFisher writes "For anyone who has ever put together a .deb package, but didn't want to bother with the hassle of setting up their own repository, or trying to get your package added to the official one, the Public Package Repository is up and running. I wonder if this means someone can finally add a version of KDE not dating from late in the Carter administration."
KDE is current (Score:4, Informative)
Re:KDE is current (Score:4, Informative)
Add the above line to
Re:Do all Deb/Gentoo users have such bad attitudes (Score:1, Informative)
debian's great leap over redhat that is the largest cause for criticism is a good packaging system with proper dependancies and *the ability to resolve dependancies automatically*. gentoo fixes debian's problems by not being license nazis and by offering the latest software soon after release optimized for your system.
Redhat lacks a central package repository and the ability to work out what things depend on what so that you can actually install something without manually hunting for more rpms or just saying screw it and installing everything.
that said, why does such a packaging system matter for most people? it doesn't. redhat can be managed site wide by simply deploying security/bugfix rpms and nothing else new beyond what your site has defined as the base install. when it comes time to upgrade a full distro/machine upgrade is done to a much later redhat release. for the other lusers out there that happily reinstall their system with each redhat release it also doesn't matter.
Re:KDE is current (Score:5, Informative)
Stable has been tested up and down and left and right, release-critical bugs must be totally eliminated, etc. The very nature of the requirements mean that stable release are relatively far and few inbetween. Once a stable release has been created, the packages that release contain are not updated except when patching bugs and security fixes. However, a stable release does provide a stable point for 3rd party packagers to create packages for.
Unstable, of course, is the up-to-the-moment bleeding-edge packages, as official packagers turn them in so to speak. This is usually very current, except for special circumstances like the cpp 2.9x to cpp 3.x transition, for which you really should be blaming the gcc people, not Debian. But since the transition is now pretty much over, Unstable is back on track with the fast updates.
Testing, however, is the middle ground. Nobody builds packages for testing, because testing is where packages from Unstable filter down to, unless blocked by breakage that would otherwise have been solved in Unstable, but for which packages have not yet filtered down into Testing. This includes security fixes: they go into either stable, or unstable ... not testing. Most people should use either Stable or Unstable. Testing is not a good place to be.