RE: Testing upgrade and consequences
#: One thing I now realize I *am* apparently guilty of -- and that is
#: having too high an expectation of what Debian is capable of
#: delivering
#: from upgrades such as testing.
I'd say that unfortunately, you are guilty of not realizing the purpose of
Testing. Testing exists to make mostly stable packages with no known major
bugs available. If you had tracked Testing from the beginning (as I have)
then I doubt that you would have many problems. Do things glitch? Of course
they do.
#: In my defence, I have to say that this expectation is born of five
#: years' practical experience of using Debian (stable) as my normal,
#: everyday working environment, for commercial purposes -- without any
#: problem. I have no experience at all of running unstable --
#: I haven't
#: time to play with stuff that is likely to let me down.
#: However, I *do*
#: have a hell of a lot of experience of running stable -- and
#: I obviously
#: expected (a lot) more from the half-way house that I thought testing
#: would be than it is currently capable of. (Shame about that.)
#: Short-sightedness/over-expectation on my part, obviously.
Just because a package is in Testing doesn't mean that all of the proper
dependencies and helper programs work perfectly. You are even warned about
this with the announcement of Testing. With the freeze, all of these things
are to be worked out, but the goal for that is an overly optimistic July
IIRC. When the next 'Stable' rears it's head, you can be sure the upgrade
will be as smooth as the last.
Ron Mullins
--I don't believe in signature lines. That is why I never do one.
Reply to: