[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 178 days and counting

On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 20:01, Hendrik Sattler wrote:

> BTW: I don't understand why most unstable packages are not in unstable 
> anymore. KDE3.x ist left out because of gcc3.2, although it does not make 
> much sense: if it breaks on transistion to gcc3.2- well, it's unstable. Same 
> with XFree4.2. What's the difference to make the gcc change with or without 
> KDE3 in unstable? It compiles with gcc2.95 and troubles with gcc3.2 are 
> expected anyway.
> Sorry, but it does not make much sense to me at all. This is no matter to me 
> though because I track testing and not unstable. But current behaviour makes 
> unstable rather pointless.

The problem is that developers (I mean Debian Developers mostly)
actually use unstable for their work. Having unstable packages to work
with is ok for most packages, but when core things like XFree, gnome,
kde ... are *really* unstable in unstable, people will get annoyed.

Yes, unstable is unstable, and developers expect brokenness here and
there. But it's a question of magnitude. And: a big update requires a
transistion plan to avoid stupid mistakes - and working out a transition
plan that works is not easy and takes time, too.

-- vbi

secure email with gpg                           http://fortytwo.ch/gpg

NOTICE: subkey signature! request key 92082481 from keyserver.kjsl.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: