On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:13:37AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I've been watching the various discussions on this, and note that most > experienced types think that the unstable distribution is better than the > testing distribution. This leads me to one more question / observation > > A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the KDE distribution in unstable > simply would not run. I've noted several of the messages recommending the > unstable branch say that there were some updates that caused the receiving > machines to crash / lock / not start. > > How does one recover from something like this short of doing a reload? For > that matter, a reload should crash the same way as it's getting the same > software. I may be missing something - quite likely, BTW, I'll admit total > ignorance here - but it would appear that it wouldn't take many of these > incidents to make the testing branch seem A LOT better than unstable.
Your concerns are valid. Another example: ghostscript 8 is worthless. It renders very badly (documents look ugly) and won't render a lot of pdf files that ghostscript 7 rendered without problems. Now to answer your question: you first have to isolate the problem. If you have, you can downgrade to the version of testing or the last package in your /var/cache/apt/archives or add snapshot.debian.net to your sources. For example, I have downgraded my ghostscript packages and put them on hold. I will check the status of ghostcript 8 in some time. Most really ugly problems are fixed within a day. If not, you can always wait it out as it will generally sort itself out in a few days. > Other than this, the arguments for the unstable over testing seem valid. And that's why a lot of people tend to take the uncommon problems for granted. HTH, David -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
