On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 03:03:24PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Yes, indeed, he was clear enough on that. But in the meantime,
> anybody who wants the nice AA fonts, who wants rxvt-aa, who wants
> RandR, who wants any current packages, is hosed.
They aren't hosed, this is the whole point of the stable feed. Packages
that are known working, show up in there. Packages that are being tested
and may break everything, show up in unstable. My new packages are guaranteed
to break things, so my warning still stands.
I'm working on unstable. Anyone who wants working updated packages from v0.4
should be at this point tracking stable.
> Can we maybe not do this next time? I think Debian's got it right:
> stable only gets security or data corrupting bug fixes, unstable is
> the latest-n-greatest, and frozen is a release candidate. Each of
> these has a codename. Debian uses characters from Toy Story as a
> theme. New releases start out as unstable, progress to frozen, and
> become stable.
Familiar's numbered releases are static. If you want the latest packages
that are known working, for a numbered release, track stable. If you want
to get the packages that are going to be making up the next release, follow
unstable. In this case, some of the next release's packages aren't going to
work seamlessly with the old release. Thus the warning, and thus
(part of) the requirement to reflash for the next release.
Alexander
Received on Wed Aug 29 12:10:20 2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 04 2004 - 09:38:30 EDT