Re: Gnome totally broke
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> Which is entirely reasonable, but not much of a justification for messages
> entitled ``Gnome totally broke'' and declaring that ``testing is once
> again thoroughly hosed''. Is a little decorum too much to ask?
"Totally broke" means "I did a straightforward upgrade, and apt
produced unfixable errors, and gnome didn't function until I fetched
newer packages from sid and installed those".
"Once again" means "Every single time there has been a big chunk of
changes in testing, the upgrade proceeds very painfully."
> You seem to be mistaking `testing' for `stable'. It's not. The goals
> of stable are significantly stricter than the goals of testing.
I'm comparing testing with *unstable*, and it's coming out the loser.
It should be more stable than sid, or there's no point at all.
Thomas
Reply to: