Re: how about a real unstable?
I second this. I can't tell you how many times I have had to get the
source to something try to get it to compile and bang my head on the
computer for 10 hours trying to get it to work. Having say the newest
version of blackbox would be nice as well as some of the newer kernels,
the newest Xemacs and other aditions.
Plus integrating the e2compr kernel patch into the standard kernels
provided with debian would also be a plus.
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> I know others have expressed this, but a big reason we wind up with slower
> release cycles is we have a stable unstable. i.e. unstable is rather
> stable. Most of the other distributions start with the software that will
> be released by the time they release and start working with it early.
> What I really mean: unstable should (as soon as work on potato is
> finished), have the new perl, xfree, apache, kernel, etc. Even if they
> are still release canidates. the sooner we have everything working with
> the new packages, the sooner we can release. For example, to wait till
> perl 5.6 is out to try to integrate it could take longer that to start the
> integration process with a perl release canidate.
> It is the unstable branch, lets take advantage of it and make it unstable
> to start out with. The sooner we can find problems and fix them, the
> shorter our release cycles will be, and the more upto-date our main
> packages will be.
> Andrew Lenharth
> Remember, never ask a geek "why";
> just nod your head and back away slowly...
> Given infinite time, 100 monkeys could type out the complete works of
> Win 98 source code? Eight monkeys, five minutes.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com