Adam, I wrote: >> ... by the way, yes it is *unstable*, I know it. But this must not >> necessarily imply that it *must* crash, right?
>> Shall we conclude that ``frozen'' is, de facto, a synonym for >> ``unstable''? Or shall frozen better contain the 0.16.3-6 packages? you replied: > It should not be considered stable until it is called so. Wait > another month or two. I think we should get back to what ``frozen'' means at this point. It is properly the collection of all packages that will be released as Debian 2.2 in about two monts. As such, although there is no guarantee that it will not break on you, it is supposed to be far more stable than ``unstable''. Now, if the ppc stream can not provide a certain package in a certain version, it will then produce the version that best fits with the original aim for ``frozen'', that is the most stable one. Therefore, if a certain maintainer uploads a certain package (enlightenment, for example) in ``frozen'', we all assume that 1. we can install it (!) 2. we can run it (even if it may still crash at some point). As enlighenment can not even be installed, then I ask for the last time to PLEASE!!! put back the 0.16.3-6 version of enlighenment in ``frozen''. I remind that perl has the same problem... Sergio
