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

Re: safe to upgrade sid?

Well, there is a certain logic to it.  Sid is explicitly not intended for 
"production use" (although many, including myself, get away with it without 
too man problems).  So, if given the choice between these two options:

- Upgrade package XYZ
- Switch to gcc 4
- Recompile/debug package XYZ under gcc 4
- Switch to Xorg
- Recompile/debug package XYZ for Xorg


- Switch to gcc 4
- Switch to Xorg
- Recompile/debug package XYZ for Xorg and gcc 4

It makes perfect sense that the Debian maintainers would go with the option 
that means less work for them but ends up in the same place in the end.  The 
whole point of Sid is that they make that decision rather than the other way 
around.  That's what "unstable" means in practice: Unsupported, bugs will get 
fixed when convenient for the maintainer, not when convenient for the user.

On Saturday 16 July 2005 12:37 pm, Anders Breindahl wrote:
> On Saturday 16 July 2005 05:11, Josh Metzler wrote:
>  > There is also the gcc 4.0 transition going on and the xfree86 -> x.org
>  > transition.  The current plan is that qt3 and then kde 3.4 will be
>  > uploaded once x.org has built on all architectures.  I plan to wait on
>  > upgrading anything x or kde related until kde 3.4 is available, assuming
>  > that that will indicate the transitions that affect me will be made. 
>  > You may want to do the same.
> It is rather disturbing, that errors in libraries in unstable is not
> prioritized any higher than the ongoing transitions.
> You can of course upgrade, but you'll need to manually install the old
> kdelibs-packages (-6.1). They'll be upgraded next time too, AFAIK.
> Annoying. But then again, that's ``unstable'' for you.
> Regards, Anders Breindahl.

Larry Garfield			AIM: LOLG42
larry@garfieldtech.com		ICQ: 6817012

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of 
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, 
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to 
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession 
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."  -- Thomas 

Reply to: