[buug] cockroaches and kernel build
hedges at ucsd.edu
Sat Aug 10 09:58:55 PDT 2002
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Rick Moen wrote:
> o "stable" = highly conservative versions, somewhat behind the times
> o "unstable" = bleeding edge devel track; access to new packages as uploaded
> o "testing" = "unstable" with automated quarantining for quality control
> Admins of desktop systems and most servers would generally be happiest
> with "testing". Most of the time, "stable" of necessity is too
> trailing-edge and deprives you of access to goodies, and the "unstable"
> track can make your system go drastically wrong because, e.g., the libc
> or perl package maintainer made a ghastly error that he hadn't yet fixed
> when you did your apt-get run.
I'm sorry to say this is some of the worst advice I've run into.
"testing" appears to be "unstable." I did dist-upgrade after
adding the testing directories, and when trying to correct font
problems with defoma, everything started to go haywire.
Finally after the installation was completely fubar I
Can anyone recommend a good method to scour re-initialized disks
for ghost files that might still be around? Or am I screwed?
More information about the buug