Re: Many packages missing from testing
> Certainly not. If you want unstable packages, then use *unstable*. If
> you want to help test the next Debian release, then use *testing*. If
> you want something that will always work, then use *stable*.
Yes, I've tried them all.
* Unstable was a bit too unstable for my taste.
* Stable is fine, but I don't really enjoy using only old software.
Often there comes new interesting software in testing, which really is
"stable enough" for me and installing it in stable is hard
(download+check dependencies+compile+install) and could easily lead to
bad problems (library incompatibilities etc.).
* So that's why my choice is and will be testing. 98% of the time it
fits my bill perfectly. And sometimes (I hope) I can file an useful
bug report which can help the development of debian. It's just sad
that rarely testing gets 'broken' as badly as it's now, but if it
can't be avoided then it can't be avoided and that's it. I can live
with it: just postpone 'dist-upgrade' long enough or change to
unstable for a while.
My purpose was not to complain. I have some coding experience (not
much but some) and I can only imagine what kind of mess so large
library transition could be with all those new bugs and problems
hiding around. I really appriciate that great job you volunteer for,
really.
I just wanted to share my view to this subject (and I'm quite sure
there are hundreds of other testing users who think similar way as I
do), but as I wrote earlier in this message if this subject has
already been dicided by pros and 'breaking' testing once in a while
cannot be avoided, then let it be that way.
Thank you for your answers,
--
Joona Kiiski <joona.kiiski@gmail.com>
Reply to: