On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:01:16AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: > mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in > unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed > 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this? > Same for udev (requiring linux kernel 2.6.12 which wasn't available for > debian) etc. At least explanation and status update would help (the bug > does have a vague ETA but no explanation). Unstable is pretty much the > only debian version usable for desktop (in general, I guess somebody > could use stable for desktop) because desktop software (X, browsers, kde > and gnome etc.) and HW support develops/changes too fast for stable to > be able to keep up.
Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is *for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to push the distro as a whole forward. No one says that you have to be running the s00p3r 133t newest version of everything on your system at all times. Testing should be a good compromise for your needs anyway. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
