On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:53:53 -0700 Mike Bird <mgb-deb...@yosemite.net> wrote:
> On Thu July 22 2010 05:21:09 Russ Allbery wrote: > > But on testing, it's been rock-solid for me for years. It's not > > just somewhat less breakage. I think it's almost no breakage. > > Occasionally packages get stranded for a long time at back revs > > because of various migration problems, and once or twice I've had > > to pin something (usually because of non-free drivers like fglrx or > > nvidia that aren't really part of Debian), but it's an experience > > that I can comfortably recommend. > > I've been bitten too many times by the "We removed X from Testing for > internal release master reasons - please don't imagine Testing is > intended for real users" syndrome. Removing packages from testing does not remove them from any existing installation, so it's hard to see how the removal of packages which are plainly not suitable for release in stable supports an assertion that testing is somehow not intended for real users. There are no "internal release master reasons" - there are Release Critical bugs and if anyone in Debian feels that the RC bug which caused the removal of the package was invalid or not as bad as reported, then that person needs to get involved and disprove the bug or explain why the severity should be downgraded. If users don't do that, there can hardly be complaints if those publicly discussed issues cause the removal of the package from Debian mirrors. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
pgpr9O0MIaeQZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
