Re: Many packages missing from testing
loos <email@example.com> writes:
[snip rant against "testing"]
> I just totally agree with you. A little difference, I switch my
> production machines (stable) to testing somewhere during the "frozen"
> time (of course using testing real name. I prefer having a manual
> control on the oldstable->newstable update. I am around since ham and
> this worked without problems for me.
I agree. The fixed names are much better. There was a thread here a
while back (6 months, a year?) about making the default be a fixed
name like "woody", "sarge" or "etch", rather than "stable". I think
that would be a much better default.
> My desktops use unstable.
As are mine. Sid is pretty solid for me so far. I can recover from
most of the mishaps. But at work I do worry since I could lose hard
if things go really badly. I guess that's why they make stable. But
that's so boring ;-).
> The problem is always the same: Newbies don't understand the sense of
> the word "unstable" as used by Debian.
> In fact they lack understanding what a distribution is, and therefore
> what a stable (or unstable) distribution is.
Exactly. I was using "testing" for a while and got tired of losing
when a package broke and wouldn't get fixed for ages.
Of course, a savvy user could default to testing and drag in unstable
(with whatever pre-reqs) whenever a breakage occured. Perhaps this
method could be made more known.