On 2023-06-11 at 09:34, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 09:20:41AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2023-06-11 at 09:02, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>> Using "stable" in your sources.list is idiotic, and you should
>>> not do it. Ever.
>>>
>>> This is not a "use at your own risk" scenario, like using
>>> "testing". That's OK for people who choose to accept the
>>> responsibility.
>>>
>>> Using "stable" is just a mistake.
>>
>> I do not understand why or how. If you want to transition from one
>> stable release to the next when that "next" release is made, I
>> don't see any better option for doing so, and I don't see how
>> there's any downside to using the symbolic name 'stable' for that
>> purpose.
>
> The issue is that an upgrade to a new stable release CANNOT BE
> AUTOMATED by the tools. There are manual steps required, and these
> are specific to each release, and to each user's unique system.
While I recognize that automation is in some cases a hard problem, I
also take the position that if you have a task that has to be carried
out on a computer over and over the exact same way every time, and you
are not automating it, you are doing it wrong.
Thus, I push back - not absolutely, but fairly hard - against "cannot be
automated".
> One example of this -- among many! -- is the changing of sources.list
> line syntax across releases. This time around, we got a new section
> ("non-free-firmware") that had to be added to each line. Before that,
> there was a change to the syntax of the security.debian.org line,
> from "buster/updates" to "bullseye-security".
And rather than putting in the design, etc., work to make these things
happen automatically when they should (and not when they shouldn't), the
developers gave up and punted it to the release notes. That could be
acceptable if done rarely, but from what I remember seeing, it seems to
happen *multiple times per release*.
As I already mentioned, it's an insufficient solution - both because
people will not read the release notes before upgrading, as I mentioned,
and also because people who are tracking testing will encounter these
changes before the release notes are written. For the most part, release
notes should be for "important changes you might want to be aware of"
and/or for getting more information on the details of changes, not for
some kind of mandatory upgrade checklist.
I might even argue that for changes like the two you cite, there should
at minimum have been a tool provided (whether on a Website, or in a
Debian package, if not something run automatically) which would make the
necessary adjustments.
> And that's just an obvious and superficial change. There are
> deeper, more subtle changes as well. None of this is automatic, and
> a user who is expecting that "hey, I can just use stable and it'll
> upgrade for me every time it needs to!!!" needs to be educated.
That's not the same as the position you took above, and while I could
agree with this one, I do not agree with the other.
--
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature