[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Upgrading to etch.

Qua, 2007-04-11 às 19:38 +0200, Micha Lenk escreveu:
> Luis Matos schrieb:
> >> Upgrading sarge to etch, without backports isn't easy.  They've been 
> >> rewriting the release notes for months now trying to get a clean upgrade 
> >> path (I think they think they are there now).  It looks as if it's a lot 
> >> more difficult than just changing the sources.list entry.
> > 
> > lol ... the question here is not to have a clean upgrade (it's seems
> > impossible), but to find a way where users *can* upgrade.
> > 
> > For example, if versions of packages in bpo are higher that the ones in
> > etch, the upgrade simply breaks... you can advice the users before they
> > come here and start asking for how to solve this.
> So this leads to the conclusions
> (a) let's have no higher versions in sarge-backports than in etch
> or
> (b) if having higher versions in sarge-backports than in etch we
>     need to provide the very same packages of higher versions
>     than etch also as packages built for Etch in etch-backports
>     *and* we need to advise the users to replace sarge by etch
>     /everywhere/ in the sources.list (generalized under the
>     assumption that users have plain sarge + bpo in their
>     sources.list).

this is the second path ... 
as providing a backport for sarge, it HAS to provide it for etch.
So, using the pin priority tag in apt, users can put debian and
etch-backports in sources.list and then we have or debian packages, or
newer packages from bpo, if a packge from bpo is installed.

This would be a great doc to users.
> Both ways are possible, but clearly (a) is much easier to support.

yes, but b) the most accurate.
>   Micha

Reply to: