On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Dominik Mierzejewski wrote:
> Oh, boy... it's not about trusting or not trusting, it's about the
> whole idea of /updates/ and rawhide. If the package is stable and
> fixes the problem, why not just put it in /updates/ instead of
> pointing at rawhide.
If you'll pay 2 or 3 full-time QA engineers to take care of the required
testing, I don't think anybody would object. ;)
The difference between updates and rawhide is that updates get official QA
testing and we don't put known broken stuff in updates.
That said, just because rawhide packages aren't QA-tested all the time
doesn't mean they don't work. I've been using the rawhide bind package on
my DNS for about a month without any problems (and I've updated to the
package because I'm convinced it's the best bind package we've had so
far).
If you're looking for something between updates and rawhide, take a look
at http://www.linux-easy.com/rh-updates/ - it's in no way official or
associated with any guarantees, but it usually works.
LLaP
bero
_______________________________________________
Seawolf-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/seawolf-list
