> The problem is that developers (I mean Debian Developers mostly) > actually use unstable for their work. Having unstable packages to work > with is ok for most packages, but when core things like XFree, gnome, > kde ... are *really* unstable in unstable, people will get annoyed.
Then they have to go look up what unstable really means. I think that they should be running testing. > Yes, unstable is unstable, and developers expect brokenness here and > there. But it's a question of magnitude. And: a big update requires a > transistion plan to avoid stupid mistakes - and working out a transition > plan that works is not easy and takes time, too. I thought that was the point of unstable. Really, I don't mind having alt apt lines. I like collecting them! I don't mind pulling in a few unstable packages on a stable system. However, I don't think that this has much to do w/ the fact that I really expect unstable to break everything. It did before for me. I didn't bitch. I stopped running unstable at work. :) Now I have a beater box at home that I upgrade daily. If things work well here, then I use those packages on my stable box. Not hard. Good day, Fred Ollinger
