Re: sarge?

[David Fokkema <dfokkema@ileos.nl>]

On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 08:05:07PM -0400, Silvan wrote:
> On Sunday 02 May 2004 02:20 pm, David Fokkema wrote:
> 
> > > Well, I took "isn't supported by Woody" to mean a pure and proper Woody
> > > without backports.
> 
> > You're right, of course. Right now, I'm trying to figure out if I like
> > the idea of woody with backports better than sid which broke some of my
> > stuff recently. Not my system, I can fix that. But the 'newer'
> > ghostscript 8 is far worse (as in unusable) than the latest ghostscript
> > 7, for example.
> 
> It *is* a perennial problem.  I ran Woody for a long time, but I'm a 
> contributing developer for an application that has to run on KDE 3.x, with 
> recent versions of automake and various other things.  Everyone else is 
> running SuSE or Mandrake, and they always have stuff two or five versions 
> ahead of Woody.  Keeping Woody backported was getting tedious.  Backports of 
> this and that aren't always compatible with each other in combination.  
> "Woody: Backport Edition" almost qualifies as a distro unto itself, and IMHO 
> it's far messier than present day Sid.
> 
> In spite of the perpetual problem of choosing the best compromise between 
> stability and having sufficiently recent versions of things to get the job 
> done (or merely to satisfy a hankering for better eye candy), it's still more 
> comfortable here than any other distro I've tried.  Putting together a distro 
> is a very hard job, and Debian does the job better than anyone.

Yup. Although I'm not too happy at the moment, I'm not going anywhere...

David

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!