Re: How unstable is unstable?

["Richard E. Hawkins Esq." <hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu>]

steve stipulated,

> >So my question is: Does unstable mean you will have all kinds of crashes and >unexpected behavior, or does it mean that some programs might have more bugs >than running in the stable distribution?

>     Unstable means that at any time a package could be a show stopper.  Show
> stopper being, "Got a rescue disk?"
...
>     Unstable, for the most part, is stable.  I followed it from Hamm frozen
> through the first stages of potato with only that one problem.  The thing is,
> when things break, they *can* break bad and you need to have the knowledge
> and skill to back out of the updates and repair the system.  IE, it is called
> unstable for a reason, use some common sense, and ride it at your own risk. 
> ;)


It seems to depend heavily on what day you do an update :)

I used unstable from .9 through bo without major problems.  Hamm gave 
me a couple of hard-core show-stoppers, and slink rendered the machine 
unusable about every other month.  I've given up on running unstable.

For that matter, slink is still a little cranky.  It shut off servies 
in inetd.conf without asking, and we're having lpd troubles on both 
machines (we seem to get a random number of lpd daemons, in the 0-2 
range).


--