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

Re: Backports installed without prompt if not in base suite: bug or feature ?

David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de> writes:

> Personally, I am in the "enable backports by default" camp as I believe
> that most people who issue a "apt install foo" want foo installed and do
> not care enough about stable vs. backports to say 'no' to the solution
> even IF they would know at the right moment that foo comes from
> backports (same for non-free)

I'd say that non-free is very different from backports in this context.

One might enable non-free solely to get a wifi driver, and want nothing
else from it.  One might disagree with the Debian position on GFDL and
want all the GNU documentation, while wanting nothing non-free.

Such users are going to want updates to any of those packages, but
they're not going to want to get another single non-free package unless
they explicitly ask for it (with -t non-free or foo/non-free)

Assuming we can make non-free behave in this way (so that upgrades are
automatic, but new installations are only by request), then it seems
possible that some people would also appreciate that feature in

If nothing else, having it as a configuration option that we can enable
by default would allow the d-i team to enable backports with confidence
knowing that this would not result in any surprised users.

Cheers, Phil.
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: