On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:13:37 -0500 Michael Satterwhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been watching the various discussions on this, and note that most > experienced types think that the unstable distribution is better than > the testing distribution. This leads me to one more question / > observation > > A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the KDE distribution in > unstable simply would not run. I've noted several of the messages > recommending the unstable branch say that there were some updates that > caused the receiving machines to crash / lock / not start. > > How does one recover from something like this short of doing a reload? > For that matter, a reload should crash the same way as it's getting the > same software. I may be missing something - quite likely, BTW, I'll > admit total ignorance here - but it would appear that it wouldn't take > many of these incidents to make the testing branch seem A LOT better > than unstable.
You're right that this happened recently with KDE in unstable. What
you're not aware of is that something similar happened last year with
KDE in testing. More specifically, last year, KDE was uninstallable
in testing for *several months*.
-c
--
Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
pgpY0XsEf2e8C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
