On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:45:32PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
> Nope. We need ourselves to play with unstable - but unstable is not up
> for testing. That's what *testing* is for! :-)
>
> Ideally, Sid should stay as a developer testbed. In fact, when I started
> using it, I got disappointed because it is not unstable at all. I have
> only had a major (for me) problem once or twice.
I agree with this statement.
During the gcc transition, I kept thinking why *unstable* had to be kept
*stable*.
I had the idea that stopping the upgrades, rebuilding *all* the packages with
the new version of the compilers and reinitiating the upgrades could solve the
problem which otherwise has caused a great deal of delay.
But I might be wrong, of course.
mooch
--
Jesus Climent | Unix SysAdm | Helsinki, Finland | pumuki.hispalinux.es
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered Linux user #66350 proudly using Debian Sid & Linux 2.4.20
Where are you going, Starfish and Friends?
--Chad (Charlie's Angels)
