Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Unstable : > * Pro : > * Autobuilt on all arches > * Wider exposure with more testing > * Cons : > * Gnome2 has some limitations beeing worked on but which may annoy > some unstable users > * Gnome1 desktop would only be kept in testing, we'd have no Gnome1 > desktop in unstable. Isn't that exactly what unstable is for, and exactly the kind of breakage users of unstable should be prepared to deal with (it's not hard to use apt-get -t testing install gnome-app if one must). I don't know much about gnome, and this is more of a generic question that I considered redirecting to debian-devel. We seem to be more and more reluctant to hose unstable, to the extent of keeping new X and now gnome out of it for a long time. Staging areas are fine for stuff like perl where they are expected to be used for only a few weeks, but once users have to learn about the staging area to get programs they need, is it not just better to put it in unstable? -- see shy jo
Attachment:
pgpvNDjqC_zyg.pgp
Description: PGP signature