Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Aug 09 21:54+1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
> On 09/08/05, Erik Steffl <email@example.com> wrote:
> > mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in
> > unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed
> > 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this?
> > Same for udev (requiring linux kernel 2.6.12 which wasn't available for
> > debian) etc. At least explanation and status update would help (the bug
> > does have a vague ETA but no explanation). Unstable is pretty much the
> > only debian version usable for desktop (in general, I guess somebody
> I would _NEVER_ recommend someone install Debian Unstable as a
> desktop... Testing, yes, Stable even more so.
Testing seems to be the least secure option. Now that Sarge is out,
stable is great... but Woody was _so_ out of date, and testing (by its
very nature) lags on security issues... it seemes to me that up until
recently unstable was the best choice for desktops. Usually, if
something breaks in unstable, you can install it from testing until it
Maybe I'm missing something?