On 2016-05-20 at 07:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 07:26:28AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > >> ❦ 19 mai 2016 16:39 GMT, Bas Wijnen <wij...@debian.org> : >> >>> Debian stable is for users who want a rock solid system. It is >>> out of date by the nature of how it is built. Users who want to >>> get the newest versions of their software should not be running >>> stable; testing is probably better for them. >> >> testing is not suitable for most people because:
>> 2. packages can disappear at any time > > If they are broken. In my book that a feature and not a bug. From a user perspective, it can be a problem, e.g. in the following scenario: * Package is in testing, works fine. User installs it on one or more machines. * Package in testing gets updated to a newer version, which is broken. * Package gets removed from testing, because it's broken. * User, who quite possibly never saw the broken version, wants to install package on another machine. From the user's perspective, what should have happened at step 3 is for the package version available in testing to be reverted back to its last non-broken version (whether verbatim or with a version bump over the broken one), not for the package to have been removed entirely. This may well not be practical as a policy, and I'm not trying to suggest it as one, but it's an example of how broken-package removal can be a bug rather than a feature. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
