On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 05:04:43PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > From: Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: SLUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: JM Alonzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [SLUG] Sid and CVS > Mail-Followup-To: SLUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > JM Alonzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:04:43 +1100 > > <quote who="Jeff Waugh"> > > > <quote who="JM Alonzo"> > > > > > are the packages in sid(latest) same as the cvs version of those projects? > > > for example, fluxbox in sid. if i apt-get source fluxbox, is the same as > > > getting fluxbox in cvs? thanks a lot! > > > > Generally not, however some maintainers do ship cvs versions, or releases > > with patches from cvs. sid (unstable), is meant to be unstable packaging, > > not unstable software. > > (A good example is the GNOME 2.0 stuff in sid at the moment. They're meant > to be shipping GNOME 2.0.x, but one of the maintainers upgraded all of his > packages to the 2.1.x versions, which are unstable development and testing > releases. This broke lots of stuff, and I was described as being "not > amused" about it. Ha ha Jeffy. Anyway, the point is that the software should > not be unstable unless there's a really good reason -> it's the distribution > that is called 'unstable'.)
i see. so it does depend on the maintainer then? -- .''`. Mike C Alonzo "We are each entitled to our own : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] opinion, but no one is entitled `. `' to his own facts." `- <http://dotdeb.150m.com> -- Patrick Moynihan
msg28685/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
