Patrick Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 11:05, Craig Dickson wrote: > >> Seriously, for your own sake (and this is the generic >> "you", I'm not addressing Paul specifically, as I don't know what he can >> or can't do for himself), why run unstable, which is _intended_ as a >> place for leading-edge testing -- "catch it here before it breaks >> something really important" -- if you aren't able to deal with the >> problems that sooner or later _will_ arise? >> >> Craig > > Some of us using unstable use it because we have to. That is, we have to > if we want to run Debian. For example, I installed unstable for XF86 > 4.2. w/o it, I had to do a mickey mouse work-around to get my xserver to > start, which to me is way worse. > > I think your point of view on people running unstable only if they can > fix these 'basic' problems that arise is foolhearty. The more people > using unstable, the more bugs that are found, reported, and eventually > fixed for future stable releases.
As long as you don't mind the occasional breakage, I don't think running unstable is a bad idea for a lot of users. After all, breaking your system and then figuring out how to fix it is a great way to learn how it all works. The 10+ duplicate bug reports filed against libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 was a bit much, though libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 doesn't have the longevity of man-db and the duplicate bugs filed for "man -k" segfaults. Poor Colin... -- People said I was dumb, but I proved them!
msg13002/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
