Le Mer 31 Mai 2006 11:50, David Martínez Moreno a écrit : > El miércoles, 31 de mayo de 2006 09:20, Pierre Habouzit escribió: > > Le Mer 31 Mai 2006 08:19, Matthias Faulstich a écrit : > > > Does anyone know, where the complete amd64 etch/testing versions > > > are hosted actually? > > amd64 is in debian for real. you can use normal debian mirrors. > No, you are wrong, Pierre. Refrain from speaking so fast. If he > wants to install KDE on amd64 *on etch* he will have to wait. oh right, I missed the 'etch' thing. though, I can't stress enough that testing isn't a good distro to live with as a user. prefer stable + backports or unstable, but etch raises a lot of problems that can cripple your life. to mention a few: * when there is big transitions (and that happens all the time) packages that are old enough, but can't go in testing because of a few uninstallable packages, you have a system that is monthes late, with possible RC and other grave bugs in it, waiting for some loosy package to be updated. that's what bites you here, wrt X.org. * when RC bugs are found, they often are also in etch, and the removal of the RC-buggy package can take time, and won't remove it from your system anyway. so it's not safer than ustable + apt-listbugs, it suffers from the same problems. With the delays beeing worse because of the previous item + propagation time to testing. * security-wise, testing is a nightmare, even with testing-security. the reason is again because of point (1): some security fixes in unstable come from the upload of a new upstream release, that may involve complex dependencies into unstable, and that isn't doable in testing-security (e.g. imagine a package that new upstream *requires* an X.org 7.0, then such a 'security fix' is stuck until X.org goes in). See a recent post of Joey Hess about linux-2.6, I quote: » I count something like 24 security holes[1] in the version in » testing that would be fixed if we could get a release in from » unstable. » » […] » » [1] Probably really more. the only thing that using testing prevents, is to have his system completely broken because of a bad package. This happens sometimes, and never last more than a day (if the breakage is really nasty). unstable needs obviously some more skills to use (but not that much, I use it on a daily basis since quite a long time, without major problems), but using testing creates dormant problems, and that's worse. at least, when unstable breaks, it's obvious. thats IMHO the rationale behind the removal of the unofficial amd64 mirrors. according to DDPO there is backports of kde 3.5.0, and I think backports.org handles amd64. If not, then I suggest you to cherry pick things from unstable, or wait for testing to see it begin to migrate for real. Solution (1) will bring you a KDE with known bugs in it (3.5.3 has quite a lot of bugs fixed), (2) will be painfull as it will pull X.org, rather use unstable for real, (3) will last a undetermined amount of time. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpI7VJw5boSy.pgp
Description: PGP signature