[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [andreimpopescu@gmail.com: Re: General unstability on wheezy (unstable repository)]

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 05:40 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
I think he wanted to CC'd so ...

----- Forwarded message from Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> -----

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:28:15 +0200
From: Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: General unstability on wheezy (unstable repository)

On Lu, 05 mar 12, 10:36:45, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> I'm speaking about "testing" not "unstable". It used to be quite stable
> and works well for the last 5 years.
> Now, it is unstable in the sense that there are many critical bugs that
> were introduced recently.
> For me such regressions should remain in "sid" and not go into
> "testing".

Release critical bugs (RC) do stay in unstable, if they are found before 
the package automatically migrates to testing. Do you have some specific 

Currently, evolution is really a pain using. It craches every 20mn, on some systems it even won't start unless inside gdb otherwise segfault. I see more that 420 bugs with many as major. I agree these are not release critical but so many bugs is a big indicator. Also there are at least 2 bugs which are severity grave.

UML is crashing even on aptitude, and many other issues like gnome3 loosing characters or X server dieing frequently or hanging when not.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: