On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 04:24:58 +0300, David Relson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:23:51 -0700
Steve Dibb wrote:
I've been reading this thread as well as the earlier (July) threads
(from gmane) and notice that everyone is discussing "30 days",
"automatic", and "stabilization
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:23:51 -0700
Steve Dibb wrote:
> Daevid Vincent wrote:
> > But as I read this thread, it seems that in effect, I won't really
> > be getting a more stable system, I'll just be getting an older, out
> > of date one, as nobody is actively monitoring packages and then
> > flaggi
Daevid Vincent wrote:
But as I read this thread, it seems that in effect, I won't really be
getting a more stable system, I'll just be getting an older, out of date
one, as nobody is actively monitoring packages and then flagging them as
stable. :(
The problem, like many other things, comes d
This is a little upsetting to learn that effectively "stability" happens as
an after thought.
I used to run a hybrid of ~x86 and stable, but I've gotten so tired of
seeing new package versions every day, I felt I was spending more time
compiling to get the latest versions, than actually using my
4 matches
Mail list logo
