Hello, > > So please disregard my statement against "testing" > [..] > (In this case, xterm could have had a conflict with your package to > avoid screwing users over unnoticed; and we could (in future) have added > a note to the testing scripts to not allow upgrades of xterm until a > fixed version of packagesearch is also included) It turned out that what I thought to be a deliberate change of how arguments are handled in xterm was actually considered to be a bug, and reported to the BTS [1]. Though xterm made the migration to testing, because the bug was only of severity normal. So it is nothing wrong with the testing mechanism, but more likely a wrongly set severity of the bug. But here is what I started with: the features in packagesearch relying on xterm were broken in testing once the version entered it. I was able to work around this bug in unstable as soon as I realized it, but the migration of the fixed package to testing was delayed due to the QT library transition. The point is humans are making errors (wrongly specified dependencies, wrong bug priorities,...) and therefore things might break in testing and the fixes usually take some time to propagate from unstable. But as I am lacking first hand experience from using testing I don't know how often it happens in testing, and if this makes testing worse than unstable -- that's also why I withdraw my statement against using testing.
Best regards Ben [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=318280 -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
