On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:53:48AM -0500, sean finney wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 10:44:16PM -0600, Hanasaki JiJi wrote: > > IMO, yes. > > > > Although, I use "sarge" not "testing" to be sure that I dont > > inadvertantly upgrade to the next version of testing by accident. > > right, but beware, there's lots of folks who say that testing is > worse off than unstable right now, because of the whole gcc/g++ > transition holding up all the upgrades from making it into testing...
Nearly. Testing has got (effectively) no new binary packages in months, because sid has switched to libc6 2.3.1, which is, er, 'a little buggy'. It's been broken enough that it's been unable to move into testing, and since all binary packages uploaded since it hit sid have been built against it, nothing has managed to have it's dependencies satisfied in testing, and have been stuck in sid. Last I checked, though, libc6 has no RC bugs left, so it might hit testing this week, and bring a huge flood of packages along with it. I haven't really kept up with the details, but the GCC 3.2 transition seems to be going fairly smoothly, so I don't think it'll cause too many testing-related issues. -- Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ertius.org/
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
