Re: How "stable" is "testing"?
On Sat, 2002-09-28 at 20:21, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> * Neal Lippman (nl@lippman.org) [020928 15:35]:
> > I am wondering how stable people are finding testing for use on their
> > workstations. I am running woody, and very happy with it. However, I
> > would like to be a bit more up to date with some of my software - for
> > instance, I'd like to be using KDE 3 instead of 2.2, and the newest
> > evolution, so I was thinking about doing a dist-upgrade to sarge. I
> > don't, however, look forward to severe breakage now that I finally have
> > my system configured and working.
>
> At least as stable as any redhat "release."
>
> </me ducks>
>
> good times,
> Vineet
> --
> http://www.doorstop.net/
> --
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
I normally run Testing, with a few packages pulled in from Unstable from
time to time when I want something that seems stalled. Occasionally,
there are installation problems from mismatches between packages (eg.
switches in ownership of a file), but the vast majority of problems that
I've had on my system (and those are few and far between) have been from
my own configuration adjustments not working out - problems in packages
are extremely rare in what I have installed, and I have much of
everything.
When the big batch of code moved from unstable to testing with the
release of Woody, I had no problems with any upgrades. I have a few
problems now from having pulled in Gnome 2 in unstable and experimental,
but otherwise, everything from testing has been fine, at least on i386.
--
Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP
ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting
Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935
Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org
Reply to: