On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 08:05:07PM -0400, Silvan wrote: > On Sunday 02 May 2004 02:20 pm, David Fokkema wrote: > > > > Well, I took "isn't supported by Woody" to mean a pure and proper Woody > > > without backports. > > > You're right, of course. Right now, I'm trying to figure out if I like > > the idea of woody with backports better than sid which broke some of my > > stuff recently. Not my system, I can fix that. But the 'newer' > > ghostscript 8 is far worse (as in unusable) than the latest ghostscript > > 7, for example. > > It *is* a perennial problem. I ran Woody for a long time, but I'm a > contributing developer for an application that has to run on KDE 3.x, with > recent versions of automake and various other things. Everyone else is > running SuSE or Mandrake, and they always have stuff two or five versions > ahead of Woody. Keeping Woody backported was getting tedious. Backports of > this and that aren't always compatible with each other in combination. > "Woody: Backport Edition" almost qualifies as a distro unto itself, and IMHO > it's far messier than present day Sid. > > In spite of the perpetual problem of choosing the best compromise between > stability and having sufficiently recent versions of things to get the job > done (or merely to satisfy a hankering for better eye candy), it's still more > comfortable here than any other distro I've tried. Putting together a distro > is a very hard job, and Debian does the job better than anyone.
Yup. Although I'm not too happy at the moment, I'm not going anywhere... David -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
