Re: KMail and Debian packages
Forgive my newbieness, but it seems you are saying that unstable is actually
more stable than testing. Since I am primarily a user who wants a good
compromise between stability and currency (in this case, I want KDE 2.2.x), I
should actually be running unstable rather than testing?
Help out a reasonably experienced, but very much not developer here? Am I
thinking wrongly in assuming that testing is preferable to unstable? I had
assumed that since packages take 10 days or whatever to make their way into
testing, then testing would be more stable, because broken updates are fixed
before the 10 days are up.
Also, I just wanted to clarify the naming scheme. At the moment, I believe
that stable=potato, testing=woody, and unstable=sid. Is this correct?
Thank you all,
Jim
Ivan E. Moore II Spoke Thusly:
> testing is testing and that's that. If people want something that is
> stable and functional they should use stable or unstable. I support
> those 2 distributions. testing is not meant to be functional at all. It
> is meant as a staging ground for our next release. By putting in hacks
> to make sure things do work in testing would only lead to other problems
> and the possiblity of KDE never making it to a stable release of Debian.
Reply to: