On (14/05/04 22:44), Silvan wrote: > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Silvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 22:44:42 -0400 > Subject: Re: Concerning testing > > On Friday 14 May 2004 10:17 am, Anthony Campbell wrote: > > > conclusion was that Unstable is the way to go in preference to Testing, > > especially as regards security updates. > > It probably is at that, but it sure is more annoying. Packages in Testing > break once in awhile. Package in Unstable break three times a week, seems > like, and they break in totally obnoxious ways. "Oops, you need to remove > everything related to KDE and X so you can install the latest version of the > ncurses libraries." Every time I start to track Unstable, I wind up going > back to Testing in short order. I guess it depends how you track unstable. If you use aptitude (and possibly apt-get upgrade as well) you can configure to ensure you are given the opportunity to abort the upgrade if there are grave bugs in any packages. You can then limit the upgrade to the unaffected packages.
I don't regard myself as any sort of expert but have been tracking unstable since December; apart from one calamity born of my ignorance, I've had a fully functioning system ever since. If things are broken in unstable you only need to carry on with your working version of any package until the upgraded one is fixed. Fixes in sarge generally take a lot longer than in sid. Regards Clive -- http://www.clivemenzies.co.uk strategies for business -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
