On Tuesday 04 January 2005 07:32 pm, J.F.Gratton wrote: > My 2 cents on this: I've been using unstable branches/testing for the > last couple of years now, and only once did I see broken packages that > stuck me there badly (you know, some combination of libc+perl+dpkg, or > something that lethal). Even then, with some fancy pussyfooting I > managed to repair everything without a fresh install. > > One thing I still don't like about Debian is the time it takes to get > new versions of major packages, even on "unstable" or "testing" (think: > Gnome 2.8). The other side of that coin is that the package maintainers > DO keep their eyes on the target. Boy do they work efficiently ! I think the Gnome 2.8 situation was an anomaly. By that time Sarge was supposed to have been ready, and rumor was that 2.8 would wait until after the release. If Sarge had been on time, I'm guessing that 2.8 would have hit unstable much sooner than it did.
Attachment:
pgp99_LcemIXa.pgp
Description: PGP signature