Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:22:57AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:16, Carl Fink wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:13:37AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> > > A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the KDE distribution in
> > > unstable simply would not run ...
> > >
> > > How does one recover from something like this short of doing a reload?
> >
> > Don't run KDE for a week or so until it's fixed? Downgrade to the
> > version in Testing, which will still work?
> >
> > I mean, you DO know how to do both of those things from the command
> > line, right? And how to get to the command line when X won't work?
> > Otherwise, really, you shouldn't use Unstable.
>
> Certainly I can turn off KDE; cripples KDevelop which is needed, but can be
> done easily. As to downgrading, I've read answers to several questions saying
> that can't be done with apt. Unless those answers were wrong, no, I don't
> know how to - short of a reload.
You can downgrade with apt, that's no problem at all! What you _can't_
do, is downgrading _all_ packages to the version numbers available in
testing. If you downgrade, you have to specify things like
apt-get install gs=7.07-1
Doing that for hundreds of packages is no fun.
> I'll take this for one vote that testing is actually a better choice than
> unstable.
Not one vote. Maybe one argument in favour.
David
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: