On -2406-Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:28:27PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thus, > I know your question was about Testing, and I answered with Unstable. > You can do the same thing to go to testing if you want, but I don't > reccomend it. Don't do testing unless you're just doing a package or two > mixed with stable until they do a freeze on testing. Just because a package > is in testing doesn't mean it's ready for use. You can search the archives > for more on this, but the basic idea I got from people is that unstable is > a better choice than testing if you want to try out the new packages.
I was under the impression that the progression from "most reliable" to "most chaotic" was Stable -> Testing -> Unstable. Is that not so? I'm also wholeheartedly against doing any sort of distribution hybrid after reading horror stories of avalanching dependency problems branching from trying to install testing or unstable packages in a stable install and ending up with multiple major versions of libraries and things... I don't want to deal with that. -- Aaron Bieber - Graphic Design // Web Design http://www.fisheyemultimedia.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
