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

OT: Package stability (was: Re: safe to upgrade sid?)

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.

Attachment: pgplpBUgMvTYE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: