On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 03:13:02PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 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".
"unfixable errors" ? What are you talking about?
Was it saying things like:
] The following packages have been kept back
] gnome-utils realplayer
? Or offering to REMOVE packages for you? Or was it going ahead and
installing stuff without you trying to force anything and then dying? You
mentioned having to use "apt-get install -f". Was this because of errors
in the packages, or because of dpkg's current tendency to segfault?
The former isn't a problem at all although people try to claim it is
all the time. The latter are bugs in the relevant packages. And it's
not possible to diagnose either with the complete lack of information
you're providing.
> "Once again" means "Every single time there has been a big chunk of
> changes in testing, the upgrade proceeds very painfully."
As far as I can tell, you've got a very low threshold of pain.
> > 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.
Forgive me for giving absolutely no weight to the vague claims you've
posted so far.
If you want to keep using unstable, please, be my guest. If you haven't
switched to unstable, then you're either being idiotic or hypocritical
or just plain incomprehensible, or you're lying and testing's actually
coming out the winner.
As far as testing serving it's actual purpose, I'm sorry, but you just
plain don't have any way to judge this yet (since we haven't completed
a release cycle with it). Further, if you don't like it, you're entirely
welcome to ignore it. And if you're just going to come up with ridiculous
hyperbole that you can't be bothered supporting, please *do* ignore it
and go away.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgp1CevYqD2cB.pgp
Description: PGP signature