On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:26:42PM -0400, Mark Carroll wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote: > (snip) > > If you want stable, you get it. If you want unstable/testing (which > > means: usually works, occasionally tweaks), you get it. Choice. All > > fully up to date. > (snip) > > Well, to an extent. Sometimes when you report a problem with a package, > the maintainer's reply is basically, "well, use the latest one from > unstable or wherever, that should work, I'm not interested in fixing the > old version too", and then you have to update the things the package > depends on too, and then before you know it it's easier not to use stable > any more. I like the idea of stable, though and, hey, I still get more > than I pay for! (-:
Another option which works for me most of the time (don't try this with Slackware): Put a source entry for testing or unstable in sources.list and 'apt-get -b source <packagename>'. Even better, first upgrade apt this way and in the future do 'apt-get build-depends <packagename>' first, so that you will get the necessary -dev libs, etc., installed before attempting to compile source. Bob