Hi, On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 02:43:42PM +0200, Neo wrote: > Hi Colin, > > so, sumarizing for my situation: it's no use tracking a > unstable 'release' because it just isn't that: a release, and never > will be.
Never. You are correct. > It's stabiblity level will vary over time, (for instance > tomorrow somebody might decide to drop linux 2.6.0-test6 in unstable) > while the testing release's stability will increase untill it's > mature enough to become a stable release. (After which testing will > fall back again, I presume, to testing's level of stability.) Kernel packages do not upgrade except for minor debian packaging version. Any change from say 2.6.0-test6 to 2.6.0-test7 will be different package and you must manually choose to install them. > Then why not take the logical step, pick a kernel release > (or combination of linux/hurd/*bsd releases), put a name on it, > put it in testing and let it grow to a stable release? This name > sid just confuses things, in my humble opinion. By the way, kernel-image-* is the current linux kernel binary distribution names. Please get used to how packages are named. Good luck and cheers. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
