Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2006-09-10 06:02:57 -0700, Marc Wilson wrote: > > That's a nonsense statement. Whether or not something is "up-to-date" > > has zero to do with whether or not it's more or less "buggy". > > Well, in the past, I had mail lost due to the spamassassin from > the stable distribution. The maintainer (or some other Debian > developer) agreed that there was a problem, but refused to make > any update of the package because this wasn't a security hole.
This is the rule for stable. Grave bugs are fixed for the next update though. > There are other problems with Debian/stable, such as external > software that can't be installed because Debian/stable is not > up-to-date; such external software may be necessary for some > users. > > Another example is Subversion, that needs a recent version of > OpenSSH (with connection sharing) for performance reasons. That's not a bug, it's a feature. That's exactly what makes stable so stable. Backports helps sometimes. > > Witness the current sysvinit fun in unstable. > > Such problems are quite rare. And maintainers should provide a way to > fix them. And here, it seemed to be the case. > > > You expect your average cluebie to even understand the problem, let > > alone how to go about fixing it? Fortunately the maintainer is right > > on top of that one, but how many cluebies read d-u? > > Everything should be in the NEWS file. > > Anyway clubies could still ask someone who knows (whatever the OS is). If, for example, X is broken (which can and did happen), how is he supposed to write to d-u? I cant imagine the average cluebie to be able to use TUI mailers. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
