On Fri, 22 May 2009 09:00:05 +0100 Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:41:22 -0300, Jorge Morais wrote: > > > Or maybe I should just stick to all-stable, so as to not be different, > > and keep package.keywords for those packages where I really want a new > > feature (like packages with no stable versions)? > > If you want so many up to date packages It is not so much. My package.keywords/longterm lists 13 packages; my package.keywords/shortterm lists 21 packages, many of which will get out of there in the future, as the version I use become stable. 5 of these 21 packages would not be there if I always had my current "it is better to avoid the bleeding edge" view. > maybe you should just run a ~arch system. I want a reliable system. Isn't ~arch quite less reliable than arch ? (Also, newer software versions are often more bloated). > It's been said many times that a mixed system is a > potential source of trouble. I didn't hear it. > Your comparison of stable Gentoo with Debian > testing is strange, since the Gentoo equivalent is ~arch. I thought Debian testing was more stringent regarding reliability than Gentoo ~arch; anyway, the point is that when a new bugfix release (like gimp 2.6.6) is released, I want to see if other distros consider the bugfixes important enough to pick it; I chose Debian because I am somewhat familiar with it; and Debian testing because AFAIK Debian stable only rarely picks updates that are not security-related. Some people even say that Debian stable is for servers.
