Re: Is the stable/unstable split broken?

Arthur Korn writes: > Russell Nelson schrieb: > > Is Debian's stable/unstable split a broken concept? > > No, if you need a _really_ stable system it's not. You're trying to define "stable" for the sysadmin. Why not let the sysadmin define stable f

Re: Is the stable/unstable split broken?

Brian May writes: > >>>>> "Russell" == Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Russell> I propose that Debian eliminate the concept of the stable > Russell> vs unstable distributions, and instead have a > Russell> m

Is the stable/unstable split broken?

Is Debian's stable/unstable split a broken concept? Here's the problem as I see it. I want to run an operating system where I get to choose the level of instability. So, when I run "apt-get update", I only want to get stable packages downloaded. On the other hand, I want to be able to run Pytho

Re: Source package policy problem.

Manoj Srivastava writes: > >>"pape" == pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > pape> Is it policy conform to have a package (or packages depending on each > pape> other) installing binaries in /usr/bin/ _and_ providing syslinks to > pape> /usr/local/bin/ ? > > No. How about provi