Re: apt sources.list
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > not upgrade. I am suggesting that people might want to prepare before
> > upgrading most of the packages on the system. (Notify users, schedule
> > downtime, whatever.) In that case it is better for the apt source to
> > break when a new release is made than to tranparently start using the
> > new release.
> Oh, right. I agree.
I don't. We are not talking about sudden silent upgrade from slink to
potato. It is rather evident by the huge number of packages to upgrade,
the large list of 'new' packages, and the various other little signs.
All you are doing is replacing this rather nice sign with a hard to
understand (404 File not found http://..../slink/...)
I guarentee the latter will result in lots of 'Why is the FTP archive
broken?' mails to email@example.com :P
If someone is running a system where it is critical to schedual downtime,
notify users, whatever, then I assert the following
1) This person will understand our release process
2) This person will be able to decide on their own what setting in
sources.list is right for them
3) This person will understand both the 404 message and the '300
packages to upgrade' message for what it means. In fact this
person likely uses the -u option and carefully makes sure only
the right packages are installed if doing security updates.
BTW. Which is the 'unstable' one -> The release named 'cow' or the release
named 'sheep' Don't know? Thats because they are not descriptive names -
most users will have no clue that hamm < slink < woody.