From: Lloyd B. <ll...@fo...> - 2004-01-31 22:34:16
|
I am quite certain that the unstable tree is as stable as possible -- which translates to very stable based on the work I have seen of the fink-users team. Possibly, if I "need" to use enough unstable pkgs , I will switch to unstable. Otherwise, this lets me stay focused on getting the packages I use into stable (for my friends). Cheers, Lloyd On 30-Jan-04, at 23:39, Thoughts... wrote: > I've always used the unstable tree, and never had any real problems > with it. It's not as scary as it sounds ;p and I think, unless you're > running Fink programs for business, unstable is stable enough for most > people... > > My two pennies, > > -T... > > On Jan 30, 2004, at 22:51, Alexander Hansen wrote: > >> No, that's pretty much how you have to do it if you just want a few >> unstable packages. >> -- >> Alexander K. Hansen >> Levitated Dipole Experiment >> http://www.psfc.mit.edu/LDX >> >> On Jan 29, 2004, at 1:25 PM, Lloyd Budd wrote: >> >>> I do not run unstable , but for applications which I am confortable >>> "handling" or just want to try out (, but they are not in stable), I >>> install them from unstable. >>> >>> When I went to grab the recent 'gaim' , I iteratively worked through >>> the list of unstable pkgs. Does any have a solution for this >>> tedious activity? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Lloyd >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 >> Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration >> See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. >> http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn >> _______________________________________________ >> Fink-users mailing list >> Fin...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users >> > |