-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Lloyd Budd wrote:
Our software often remains a long time in unstable because the User do nto submit enough feedback to the maintainer. I have many packages in the unstable tree that work like a charm, which I use everyday but until I see substantial feedback, I will ot move them to stable.
On 6-Apr-04, at 14:48, Darian Lanx wrote:
Stan Sanderson wrote:
<snip>
Using the unstable tree has risks, which I accept.
Just out of curiosity, which risks are you reffering to? Our unstable tree could be considered by the following definition of the word:
d (1) : liable to change or alteration.
The software itself should not be less stable than the one found in the stable tree.
This is an interesting assertion. How do you reach that conclusion?
Yes, there are packages which start out in unstable and the amount of users that end up testing them actually digs up bugs, but the rule of thumb is, that packages in unstable run just as stable as those in stable do. There are some but if you break down the numbers the marjority runs "stable".
Furthermore I was getting to the "risk" thing, which I do not quite understand, as I do not see any 'risk' in running things from unstable. That is why I asked
- -d
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFAc0/ZPMoaMn4kKR4RA8oiAJ41Q9+VxQjdrlZEEZgWGaLb5B/cyQCffIo5 /104g90ZSgJQq7RKyOip804= =3vgf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-beginners mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-beginners
