Bug#468573: marked as done (Default sources.list should use release names, not 'stable')
Your message dated Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:55:12 +0100
with message-id <200802291955.12797.elendil@planet.nl>
and subject line Re: Bug#468573: Default sources.list should use release names, not 'stable'
has caused the Debian Bug report #468573,
regarding Default sources.list should use release names, not 'stable'
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
468573: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=468573
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-installer
Version: 20070308etch2
Severity: normal
It's almost a daily occurence on #debian for people to come in with
broken systems because the installer has given them a sources.list
with 'stable', and they've unintentionally upgraded partially to a new
release by doing a simple packaging operation. It seems that it would
be better for the installer to use explicit release names instead of
'stable'.
Of course, the fact that people are having trouble with something
doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong. Even so, I can't see the
upside of using 'stable'. An oldstable->stable upgrade is not simple
enough that it makes sense for it to happen as a natural result of
using the packaging tools as opposed to because the admin has made a
deliberate decision to upgrade.
In the case of people who simply aren't aware of the idea of
oldstable->stable upgrades, I think it makes more sense to leave their
systems as the originally-installed release indefinitely than it does
to let them partially upgrade (or do an attempt at an upgrade with
dist-upgrade). I think the chance that they'll figure out that the
apt output they're seeing means that they need to go to
www.debian.org, read the release notes, and then follow them carefully
in order to upgrade their system, is quite small.
Cheers.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Friday 29 February 2008, Andrew Moise wrote:
> It's almost a daily occurence on #debian for people to come in with
> broken systems because the installer has given them a sources.list
> with 'stable', and they've unintentionally upgraded partially to a new
> release by doing a simple packaging operation. It seems that it would
> be better for the installer to use explicit release names instead of
> 'stable'.
It would be nice if you'd check your facts before filing a BR.
The Debian Installer has been setting codenames in sources.list files since
Etch. Sarge was the last release where the installer used suites.
apt-setup (1:0.4) unstable; urgency=low
[ Frans Pop ]
* Use the codename for the release in sources.list instead of the suite.
Requires: cdrom-detect >=1.11; choose-mirror >=1.16; iso-scan >=1.10.
Closes: #313235
-- Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> Fri, 9 Dec 2005 12:09:30 +0000
^^^^^^^^^^
Cheers,
FJP
--- End Message ---
Reply to: