On 2017-04-25 17:29, Richard Brown wrote:
On 25 April 2017 at 14:49, Anton Aylward <> wrote:
I'm sure there are people who will shout me down for using this approach, but lets face it, there are many of us who configure extra repositories for a variety of reasons, and I'm sure that getting 'the latest and greatest' for application packages rates high among them. I'm pretty sure that is the case for the few other photo enthusiasts I correspond with.
This is absolutely true. There are many Leap (or equivalent distributions) users that do it that way.
My feelings on additional repositories are well documented. TL;DR - They are a bad idea when not done properly. I do not feel we are doing them properly right now, and I'm not sure the effort of doing them properly is justified.
https://speakerdeck.com/sysrich/distribute-or-die-arguing-against-additional...
And
I absolutely disagree on this.
My feelings on how rolling releases are one of the best things ever is also well documented, especially how rolling releases done properly (like Tumbleweed) undermine a lot of the justifications for additional repositories.
https://speakerdeck.com/sysrich/fosdem-2017-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-a...
Of
course I also disagree on this, absolutely.
So, in short, I'm happy you are happy with your approach. I respect anyone who supports your approach and wish them a lot of luck & patience. But I won't support them beyond that, because I think they're walking a path we've been down, screwed up, broke everything, fixed everything, and moved on from.
Well, let's hope that the majority of maintainers do not think your way. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" (Minas Tirith))