Re: KMail and Debian packages

[James Lindenschmidt <jwl@maine.rr.com>]

Further, at http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/ , it says the following: 
"the testing distribution should be more stable than unstable, but you should 
be cautious nevertheless."

Now I'm really confused . . . ?

Thank you all.

James Lindenschmidt Spoke Thusly:
> 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.

-- 
???`????,??,????`????,??,????`????,??,?
          James Lindenschmidt
           JWL@maine.rr.com
???`????,??,????`????,??,????`????,??,?