Bug#764982: Backports, where is the danger (why the FUD)
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 07:35:21PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2015, at 7:15 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >
> > Do you see that ?but?? That's exactly why it's not safe to have this
> > turned on by default.
>
>
> Thank you KiBi! I defiantly don't want back ports enabled by default!
>
> _I_ don't trust them (even if "the rest of the world" do - I have the
> right to my opinion after all).
>
> And just because you, Paul, do trust them and enable them on everything,
> doesn't mean everyone else is comfortable with it. There is a potential
> risk with them (as KiBi pointed out) so having them in the file, but
> commented out (don't know if that was the solution, or removing them
> all together) seems like the most prudent option.
What is the danger of having backports (default) enabled?
I do see the FUD and I want to call it Fear Uncertainty and Doubt!
And it is that I want to go beyond the FUD.
So what is the danger that I do see yet?
> I also see this as a non-issue (and yet I had to voice my opinion - I must
> be more bored than I thought :).
I wasn't bored and did read https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=764982#15
So now I have a nice opportunity to quote Joey Hess
apt won't install newer versions from backports
unless the user explicitly specifies -t $suite-backports
previous in this BR
Groeten
Geert Stappers
--
Leven en laten leven
Reply to: