On Friday 11 June 2004 22:30, Micha Feigin wrote: >> It has a few characteristics >> relateing to this: if some part of kde in 'testing' has may bugs, and >> this cases kde to not function, the whole of kde is removed from >> 'testing'. So, groups of packages can be moved in and out as things >> get fixed in 'testing'. But as 'testing' gets closer to being >> 'stable', in tends to have less big shift like this. But the idea is >> that if you NEED kde, all you can do is wait until things are fixed. >> This can be a few days or a few months. >> >> With unstable, things are being put in all the time and it does not >> have the hugh package shift like 'testing'. Also, bug fixes reported >> in unstable or testing get put into the next unstable package. >> > > Unstable gets new packages all the time. Most problems that appear > there though are when the program has had major changes or there was a > change in the packaging scheme and then some packages may not be > installable for several days and in such cases if the package is > already installed you won't be able to update it until things are > fixed, but everything already installed will continue to function, you > just need to watch the upgrades to make sure aptitude is not trying to > remove something you need and just wait with updates until its fixed > or hold the packages which have problems at the current version until > things are ok (the = under aptitude).
So are there any practical disadvantages to running unstable instead of testing? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
