Better upgrade-support on cdrom please.

[pansz]

When I upgrade from 6.06 Dapper to 6.10 Edge, I found that the /cdrom/cdromupdate could not run. the "offcial way", i.e. update-manager -c does not work either. then I have to use the "Not recommended method" to manually edit the /etc/apt/sources.list, which does lead to some problems.

When I upgrade from 6.10 Edge to 7.04 Feisty, I found that I must install "gksu" in order to update my kubuntu from my kubuntu alternative cd. ——kdesu does not work because /cdrom/cdrom-upgrade will launch a gtk application.

The Kubuntu is a distribution really is a KDE which update distros too frequently (only half a year), Then it arises a problem that I often need to upgrade. I've got 3 computers at home so I definitely do want to upgrade with "Alternative CD" instead of download the whole distro 3 times.

So, please provide good support for upgrade from alternative install cd, it is absurd that a KDE distribution requires gtk-based application like "update-manager" or "gksu" just to upgrade.

——and, I still wonder if there is any future plan to prolong 6 months release cycle of kubuntu and let software packages just update within the same distro.

Why there must be a Feisty to replace Edge (or Gutsy to replace Feisty)? Will things work just like upgrade packages directly to Edge and the distro name "edge" would not change at all?

You may argue that Dapper is long-time-support, but, the packages does not get updated in dapper at all! for example vim in Dapper is always 6.4 even if vim 7.0 has out for more than a year, and then cmake in dapper is always 2.2, while 2.4 is required by KDE. it is the fact that most softwares does not get upgraded at all so that it is hard to use Dapper as a working distribution. I wonder who will still be using the IMO "cripped" dapper version of kubuntu.

[3vi1]

Re: Better upgrade-support on cdrom please.

it is absurd that a KDE distribution requires gtk-based application like "update-manager" or "gksu" just to upgrade.

Just playing devil's advocate here, as I don't feel too strongly either way on this, but: Most people probably have gtk installed for other apps. Is it not better to have one tool that was thoroughly tested, than to duplicate all that effort and upkeep for a tool most people use once or twice a year?

Why there must be a Feisty to replace Edge (or Gutsy to replace Feisty)? Will things work just like upgrade packages directly to Edge and the distro name "edge" would not change at all?

This should actually be pretty obvious when you think about it...

The named versions are points where kernel upgrades and major changes to other internals are implemented. Having a "line drawn in the sand" at each version means that you can be more confident that a particular set of packages were tested to all work nicely together.

If you've used the alphas and betas, you know how broken things can become when these changes are first implemented in the new versions, whether it be kernel versions or updates to major packages (KDE, OpenOffice, etc.). Sometimes, you can't even boot on particular hardware. It's important that people who are trying to be productive don't become forced-beta-testers for every new package.

What works for the packager seldom works for everyone else the first time out. Look at all the packages that have the same version number but end in -2... -3... -21!

You may argue that Dapper is long-time-support, but, the packages does not get updated in dapper at all!

The packages do get updated - if a major problem or security concern is found. They don't get updated to every new incremental feature version because you simply don't have large group of testers and valid test environment for that kind of thing - that's why the next version is "unstable" for many months before (most) every problem is found and fixed. A "stable" release shouldn't change anything except when absolutely necessary.

I wonder who will still be using the IMO "cripped" dapper version of kubuntu.

Professionals. Companies want Long Term Support in the form of security updates - they don't want every package to be updated constantly. In fact, most companies don't want anything updated until their own testers have thoroughly signed off on it not breaking their standard images. This is true for any decent Linux OR Windows shop.

In short, no - we can't have one constantly rolling version - it would constantly be buggy in multiple areas. Even the alpha releases become frozen to a particular featureset at certain milestones - it's the only way to stop introducing new bugs/conflicts and fix the ones you already have.