On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 10:22, Craig Dickson wrote: > Colin Watson wrote: > > > You explain to the common man not to use unstable. :) > > > > It *certainly* shouldn't have broken in the first place, but accidents > > happen. If one doesn't have enough system administration experience to > > cope with this kind of thing (after all, it was "just" everything > > written in C++ that broke, not, say, the dynamic linker as I'm told used > > to happen, or PAM preventing all logins, or ...), then unstable is > > really not the distribution one should be running. > > Yes, I remember the PAM incident back in early 2001. That was much > nastier than this C++ problem. One had to switch to single user mode, > then download and install a corrected package from incoming. > > > This may sound callous, but those "some people" - or at least those > > people who *can* fix it, perhaps not trivially easily - are the only > > people who should be using unstable. > > I have to agree. I hit the C++ problem yesterday afternoon when I did my > daily Sid update. It was annoying, but not that hard to work around. I > considered symlinking it to the nearest-match version of the same > library, but decided it was probably a more certain fix to just > downgrade to the previous libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 package. Anyone who > couldn't figure out how to do that without help probably should stick to > testing rather than unstable. Otherwise, the next time something nasty > happens in Sid, they may find that they don't know what to do, and all > the usual resources (Debian lists and web pages) are unreachable because > of the breakage. What then? > > Craig
Me, I keep a minimal woody on another partition :) -- First Impressions are Bunk. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
