On Thursday 14 Aug 2003 17:14, David Z Maze wrote:
> Testing is still a comparatively young concept for Debian. For the
> woody release, it seemed to work fairly well. At this point, the
> canonical problem we've run into looks something like this: package A
> depends on package base (= 1). Base is upgraded to version 2.
> Packages B through Z update and now require base (>= 2), but A
> doesn't. The way the testing rules work, base can't be updated, since
> that would break A's dependency, but that means that none of B through
> Z can be updated either. The solutions are either "wait forever" or
> "intentionally break A", and the testing czars have gone with the
> latter option as of late, with the result that testing is closer to
> current but not necessarily useful on its own.
For me personally, testing holds no appeal. You arent getting security updates
like you are with stable, and you arent on the cutting edge because of
glibc/gcc/whatever it is today holding it up. Personally i have never found
unstable to be such, but then again im a fairly compotent user and if my
machine becomes unuseable i know how to get it back the way it was.
I recon you cant beet a good bit of debian unstable with a linux BBC rescue
disk. How many people can say they have linux in their wallet ;)
Tom
--
^__^ Tom Badran
(oo)\______ Imperial College
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| || Using Debian SID
Attachment:
pgp5aWicztNYt.pgp
Description: signature