Re: glibc: causes segfault in Xorg
Jon Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 11:48:33AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> While I can sympathize with this (it's what I want as a developer),
>> it's certainly not a good idea in Debian in general: we have many
>> derivatives taking unstable/testing at various points in time, and we
>> also want to make testing generally usable by end-users.
I don't think mixing unstable and testing here as if they're the same
thing is warranted. If we get common crashes, that's going to become an
RC bug fairly quickly, and won't be propagated to testing.
>> So it's best if you consider unstable always in production-mode by
>> default.
> I disagree with this. We expect *our* users of sid to use things like
> apt-listbugs and to be wary of blindly upgrading. I think we should
> hold downstream distributions to higher standards. If a downstream
> distribution blindly accepts a libc from sid and it doesn't do what they
> want, imho that's their fault. Especially with a core package.
> I'm concerned that this attitude, if adopted elsewhere, would paralyze
> Debian development, for fear of inconveniencing other distributions.
+1
unstable is exactly the place to check this sort of thing, IMO.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: