David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:01:16AM -0700, Erik Steffl 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 could use stable for desktop) because desktop software (X, browsers, kde and gnome etc.) and HW support develops/changes too fast for stable to be able to keep up.Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is
errr... where would YOU like to work? In intentionally broken unstable becuase "it's just unstable"? You surprise me.
*for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to push the distro as a whole forward. No one says that you have to be running
isn't that what experimental is for?
the s00p3r 133t newest version of everything on your system at all times.
no but I want to. Because non-1337 stuff is usally several years old (not at the moment but it's getting old fast) and not suitable for desktop usage (in general)
Testing should be a good compromise for your needs anyway.
well, the fixes take forever to get to testing plus not sure about security (apparently there's some effort to fix this as was mentioned in another message in this thread: http://secure-testing.alioth.debian.org/)
so while testing seems like a good idea in general it doesn't seem to be very appealing in its current incarnation... (I started to use testing but gave up)
erik