"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's offtopic for this list, but just as info, I stopped using > testing about a year ago, give or take some months. Previously I > *tried* using testing for about two years until the day when I became > clear that even if it sounds great on paper, in reality it's utterly > broken.
??? I don't think that's true, in general. testing's not perfect, but it's not anywhere near `utterly broken.' I use testing on my home machine and it seems to work quite well for just about everything _except_ gnome (I use whoever's gnome 2.x backport, so I don't have any probs with that). Perhaps KDE has similar problems but I don't use that, and really, there don't really seem to be all that many big hairy subsystems like Gnome or KDE which are composed of many package with hard to expression relationships. For the most part testing seems like what it was intended to be -- a slightly old verion of unstable without unstable's occasional nasty bugs. Because the problem cases (e.g. Gnome) seem to be the exception, presumably they could be handled with a few extra knobs somewhere. -Miles -- Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. -- Jerry Garcia
