On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 05:04:43PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > <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,
Why not the actualy "not fit for release ... yet" stuff? > 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, damn, now unstable is supposed to be stable. Who knew? > and I was described as being "not > amused" about it. Ha ha Jeffy. I, and all the other people who slogged through a large amount of bandwidth were though ... really. > 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'.) That is your opinion Jeff. It is just unfortunate that you managed to convince Colin et al that what you were saying was gospel. Anand -- `` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
