<snip> I just gave the first example that came to my mind, there are others, I'm sure. I know that from time to time it did frustrate me to see software I knew to be released, but not being available yet with apt.
Concerning the specifics as to why Gnome 2.8 was or was not there fast enough... Do not take wrongly what I'll say, it is by no means as a rebuke: it's simple: end-users do not want to know *why* a specific package is / is not there. Politics/policies do not matter to them. You will say that it's open-source and people have to right really to complain, or better, that they should do it themselves. Partly true. Since I didn't mean to hijack your thread, people, I'll leave it at that :) Jeff On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 01:46 +0000, Peter Nuttall wrote: > <snip> > > I would disagree on this point. For example, when kde 3.3 came out it was in > unstable before the release was announced. (the packagers get it a week > early).I have seen similar upgrade speeds in debian at other times as well. > Also, was it not the case that Gnome 2.8 was ready in experimental, but the > packagers wanted to keep sid clear for running upgrades though to sarge? > > Pete > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
