On Saturday 12 November 2005 01:21, Johan Kullstam wrote: > loos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [snip rant against "testing"] > > > I just totally agree with you. A little difference, I switch my > > production machines (stable) to testing somewhere during the "frozen" > > time (of course using testing real name. I prefer having a manual > > control on the oldstable->newstable update. I am around since ham and > > this worked without problems for me. > > I agree. The fixed names are much better. There was a thread here a > while back (6 months, a year?) about making the default be a fixed > name like "woody", "sarge" or "etch", rather than "stable". I think > that would be a much better default. > > > My desktops use unstable. > > As are mine. Sid is pretty solid for me so far. I can recover from > most of the mishaps. But at work I do worry since I could lose hard > if things go really badly. I guess that's why they make stable. But > that's so boring ;-). > > > The problem is always the same: Newbies don't understand the sense of > > the word "unstable" as used by Debian. > > In fact they lack understanding what a distribution is, and therefore > > what a stable (or unstable) distribution is. > > Exactly. I was using "testing" for a while and got tired of losing > when a package broke and wouldn't get fixed for ages. > > Of course, a savvy user could default to testing and drag in unstable > (with whatever pre-reqs) whenever a breakage occured. Perhaps this > method could be made more known. > Wouldn't pinning work very well in this case to allow a mixed testing/unstable system? The trouble packages can then be installed from unstable using the -t option, with the majority of the rest of the system runs at a testing level (for example all the non GUI stuff).
Chris -- PD Dr.-Ing. C. Hurschler Bodenstedtstr. 13 30173 Hannover 0172-5940909 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
