> From: songb...@anthive.com
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> John Hasler wrote:
>> songbird writes:
>>> i"ve been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental
>>> for quite some time now.
>>
>> Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish.
> of course. :) it is not like
John Hasler wrote:
> songbird writes:
>> i've been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental
>> for quite some time now.
>
> Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish.
of course. :) it is not like i'm using a lot of
things from there. more like one or two items.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 06:52:13AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> tomas writes:
> > Big, heavily interdependent systems [...]
> I have full Perl and Python environments and I sometimes run CFD, FEM
> and CAD packages. I think that the key is that I scan
songbird writes:
> i've been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental
> for quite some time now.
Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish. Unstable
contains packages that the developer hopes and expects will migrate to
Testing and end up in Stable without incident,
tomas writes:
> Big, heavily interdependent systems consisting of lots of packages
> (big language environments à la Perl, Python, Java -- but most
> prominently big desktop environments) are especially vulnerable to
> version churn, which typically happens in testing once in its life
> cycle.
I h
Jason Cohen wrote:
...
> My question is how Debian Testing and Unstable compare in terms of
> stability. The Debian documentation suggests that Testing is more
> stable than Unstable because packages are delayed by 2-10 days and can
> only be promoted if no RC bugs are opened in that period [1].
> My experience, solely as a user, has been that sometimes the unstable
> distribution breaks and you're hosed. I can't remember when I was
> last burned by running testing.
I can't remember when I was last burned by Unstable. It is necessary to
follow debian-dev to know when not to upgrade. I
I can not help much in developing or bug analysis, so my contribution has been
to test
what is handed out to me for testing. I have yet not been able to contribute
much as
nothing seems to break in testing or sid (amd64 openbox/lxde) ever. Sometimes I
wonder when I read the list or archives thing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:24:08PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Jimmy Johnson writes:
> > From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before
> > making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security
> > updates (in the form
My experience, solely as a user, has been that sometimes the unstable
distribution breaks and you're hosed. I can't remember when I was last
burned by running testing.
On 07/05/2017 07:24 PM, John Hasler wrote:
Jimmy Johnson writes:
From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before
making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security
updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more
likely to be consistent duri
Jimmy Johnson writes:
> From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before
> making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security
> updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more
> likely to be consistent during transitions.
Unstable is not requir
On 07/05/2017 05:17 PM, Jason Cohen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I've been using Debian for a number of years, but my experience has
typically been with servers where I have used the Stable branch for its
reliability and security support. However, I recently began usin
On 7/5/17 8:17 PM, Jason Cohen wrote:
> I've been using Debian for a number of years, but my experience has
> typically been with servers where I have used the Stable branch for its
> reliability and security support. However, I recently began using
> Debian Stretch for my desktop and foresee a ne
14 matches
Mail list logo
