Richard Fish wrote:
On 9/3/06, b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, the mystery of why are things marked stable...
If fixes for 4.1.1 are in ~arch, why is 4.1.1 in arch?
For the benefit of the (hopefully, vast majority of) users not
affected by this. It should only be a few, seldom-used packages that
have this problem.
I don't get it. A given arch system should be self consistent. An ~arch
system in theory should be too, but being testing I understand it can not.
The purpose of being on arch should be "having a self consistent system
within itself" not "having a mostly working bunch of packages". The few,
seldom-used packages could be the *critical* packages for a given user
(I think to some scientific packages, for example... not many use them,
but they can be the very reason to have Linux for someone) Shouldn't all
stable packages being tested with a given compiler before that compiler
becomes stable?
m.
--
[email protected] mailing list
