On Saturday 16 July 2005 21:00, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Anders Breindahl [Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:37:40 +0200]: > > It is rather disturbing, that errors in libraries in unstable is not > > prioritized any higher than the ongoing transitions. > > Sorry, but if this fuckup has not been fixed already is because it > can't be fixed without major pain, due to GCC 4 being the default > compiler now. Thanks to those who pointed this out. That had passed my attention. I was merely providing the (thought-up) view of a user, who didn't understand how his or her system broke because of a software update. The frustration is real, but if I worried about stability of packages, I shouldn't have gone with Unstable. I know that fact, but I just didn't know that I worried about the stability of packages. As is, I have become afraid of dist-upgrading: What is going to break this time? And I suppose that I am not the only wannabe-dev, who runs Unstable simply because of the version numbers it supplies. All that is well known. The morale is, that I still shouldn't suggest Unstable to users I help install, and that I really should consider Testing myself. I assume that such ``errors'' as kmail breaking would be considered rather important to fix straightaway, if they should emerge in Testing..? Regards, Anders Breindahl.
Description: PGP signature