On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 03:12:52PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
That, of course, when we're not busy handling unhelpful ideas or
complaints from people who do not really understand what's going on. How
many times more this same discussion is going to happen?
why do you assume I don't know how
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:18 -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
all in all, if you offer a distro that is several years old it's not
suitable for _general_ desktop use (I'm sure it would be OK for _some_
dektop users), regardless of how much you dislike people running unstable.
Then stick with
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 19:17 -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
well, what is experimental for then?
Experimental is for stuff you DON'T plan to be in next stable. Or for
stuff which could break next release (which is not case right now).
F.E.: GNOME 2.6-2.8 transition was done in experimental in
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 22:56 -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
So you're complaining that this jackd bug is exemplary of
unneccessary breakages in unstable, and yet you don't even know if
there is a good reason for this bug. You don't know if this is tied to
the gcc change.
I believe that #318098
* Erik Steffl [Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:01:16 -0700]:
mini rant
debian-devel is not your blog. Please do refrain from ranting here in
the future, at least while being a guest.
This thread has made me want to scream. Please educate yourself about
the details of our development model before
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:56:21PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
David Nusinow wrote:
Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is
errr... where would YOU like to work? In intentionally broken
unstable becuase it's just unstable? You surprise me.
No. But this is a
I would _NEVER_ recommend someone install Debian Unstable as a
desktop... Testing, yes, Stable even more so.
In my experience, sid breaks less than testing when used as a desktop.
OTOH, I avoid doing apt{-get,itude} upgrade... I generally enter the
interactive aptitude screen, press U, and
Em Ter, 2005-08-09 às 19:17 -0700, Erik Steffl escreveu:
That is wat unstable is for.
well, what is experimental for then? And what would you offer to
desktop users?
Stop that. That's how our release process works; using unstable (maybe
even testing, for that matter) for common-user
Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
Em Ter, 2005-08-09 às 19:17 -0700, Erik Steffl escreveu:
That is wat unstable is for.
well, what is experimental for then? And what would you offer to
desktop users?
Stop that. That's how our release process works; using unstable (maybe
even testing, for
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:56:21PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
...
No. Summarizing the above, experimental is there for people to break on
purpose, while unstable is there for people to break by accident. Since
that's all I was saying! Don't break it intentionally and
Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
that's all I was saying! Don't break it intentionally and say it's
only unstable, deal with it.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to deliberately break
unstable. For example, I might choose to upgrade a new version of a
shared library, knowing it
Em Qua, 2005-08-10 às 15:12 -0700, Erik Steffl escreveu:
well, OK but _now_ the best option is unstable. All I was saying that
IMO developers would help a lot by not using it's just unstable as an
excuse to break it (or sort of break it, like jackd does). I was not
asking for unstable to
yes it's unstable but still, what's the status of jackd? Currently
it's pretty much uninstallable (i.e. lot of packages would have to be
removed to install jackd). Considering that jackd is required (or at
least very useful for) by almost all major audio apps this is fairly bad
- any ideas
On 09/08/05, Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in
unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed
2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this?
Same for udev (requiring linux kernel 2.6.12
Nigel Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 09/08/05, Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in
unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed
2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this?
Same
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:01:16AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in
unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed
2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this?
Same for udev (requiring linux
On Aug 09 21:54+1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
On 09/08/05, Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in
unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed
2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this?
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:28:58AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:01:16AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in
unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed
2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:16PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:28:58AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is
*for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to
push the distro as a
On 8/9/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This doesn't really work that way in reality, because you're just pushing
things up yet another level. At some point non-developers will use
experimental the way they use unstable now.
I think the only real solution to this is to allow multiple
Nigel Jones wrote:
On 09/08/05, Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in
unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed
2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this?
Same for udev (requiring
[Eldon Koyle]
Maybe I'm missing something?
I suspect you are. Are you aware of
URL:http://secure-testing.alioth.debian.org/?
If you see through
URL:http://dc5video.debian.net/2005-07-12/08-Securing_the_Testing_Distribution-Joey_Hess.mpeg,
you will hear more about it. The status of testing
David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:01:16AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in
unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed
2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this?
Same for udev
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:16PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:28:58AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:01:16AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in
unstable for significant periods (e.g.
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:56:21PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
errr... where would YOU like to work? In intentionally broken
unstable becuase it's just unstable? You surprise me.
We need to work somewhere. We don't intentionally break unstable for no
good reason.
*for*. It lets us break
David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:16PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:28:58AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is
*for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 04:23:55PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
well, sometime bugs get all the way to stable, no software is without
bugs. What I was talking about is that 'unstable' is pretty much only
usable desktop
Clearly not, or you wouldn't find it necessary to complain about the fact
Op di, 09-08-2005 te 16:23 -0700, schreef Erik Steffl:
BTW I think it makes a lot of sense to use experimental for most of
the initial testing
That is wat unstable is for.
and only release to unstable when it looks like the
package is a release candidate.
That is testing, it should be
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 06:56 pm, Erik Steffl wrote:
well, the fixes take forever to get to testing
That is because they need to go through testing and bug fixes in unstable.
so while testing seems like a good idea in general it doesn't seem to
be very appealing in its current
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 04:23:55PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
well, sometime bugs get all the way to stable, no software is without
bugs. What I was talking about is that 'unstable' is pretty much only
usable desktop
Clearly not, or you wouldn't find it necessary to
Arjan Oosting wrote:
Op di, 09-08-2005 te 16:23 -0700, schreef Erik Steffl:
BTW I think it makes a lot of sense to use experimental for most of
the initial testing
That is wat unstable is for.
well, what is experimental for then? And what would you offer to
desktop users?
and only
Josh Metzler wrote:
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 06:56 pm, Erik Steffl wrote:
well, the fixes take forever to get to testing
That is because they need to go through testing and bug fixes in unstable.
well, what does it matter? The bugs take forevr to fix so testing is
not really usable...
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 07:17:50PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
well, what is experimental for then? And what would you offer to
desktop users?
Packages that you *know* aren't ready to be shipped. For example, I plan to
put Xorg pre-release packages in experimental for people. These will
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 07:08:55PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 04:23:55PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
well, sometime bugs get all the way to stable, no software is without
bugs. What I was talking about is that 'unstable' is pretty much only
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 07:28:07PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
repeat: note that I am not complaining about c++ abi changes etc.,
that can't be avoided, I think. I was specifically talking about
_unneccessary_ problems that get weeks to fix for unknown reasons like
jackd bug #318098
For the record, bug #318098 is related to the gcc transition - the packages
that will get removed if jackd is installed are most of kde. A new kde
could not be uploaded to change the dependency to the new libjack0.100.0-0
because of the chain of dependencies that had to make the gcc transition
36 matches
Mail list logo
