Re: Debian testing vs unstable for home workstation?
On Friday 11 June 2004 22:30, Micha Feigin wrote:
>> It has a few characteristics
>> relateing to this: if some part of kde in 'testing' has may bugs, and
>> this cases kde to not function, the whole of kde is removed from
>> 'testing'. So, groups of packages can be moved in and out as things
>> get fixed in 'testing'. But as 'testing' gets closer to being
>> 'stable', in tends to have less big shift like this. But the idea is
>> that if you NEED kde, all you can do is wait until things are fixed.
>> This can be a few days or a few months.
>>
>> With unstable, things are being put in all the time and it does not
>> have the hugh package shift like 'testing'. Also, bug fixes reported
>> in unstable or testing get put into the next unstable package.
>>
>
> Unstable gets new packages all the time. Most problems that appear
> there though are when the program has had major changes or there was a
> change in the packaging scheme and then some packages may not be
> installable for several days and in such cases if the package is
> already installed you won't be able to update it until things are
> fixed, but everything already installed will continue to function, you
> just need to watch the upgrades to make sure aptitude is not trying to
> remove something you need and just wait with updates until its fixed
> or hold the packages which have problems at the current version until
> things are ok (the = under aptitude).
So are there any practical disadvantages to running unstable instead of
testing?
Reply to: