Re: Little things make the initial install experience painful
On 20-Jun-02, 17:42 (CDT), Nick Phillips <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 09:00:41AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 07:44:29AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > Because when (woody+1) is released, all the people who still have
> > > "woody" in their sources.list will complain about how they don't see the
> > > upgrade.
> > That's preferred, IMHO. You shouldn't just get a new os because you
> > apt-get update one day. You *should* need to take an extra step and read
> > the release notes before doing such an upgrade.
> I totally agree; that's why I mentioned that calling it "woody" would
> remove the accidental upgrade to a new stable when it arrives - which Steve
> seemed to miss.
I didn't miss it. I think we've actually had this discussion before
(probably with defaults in dselect many years ago), and this problem
actually came up, and the consensus was to use use stable/unstable in
the control files. OTOH, I don't have a reference to it, so I could be
making it up.
Remember, it's unlikely that someone running stable is going to have the
equivalent of "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade" running in a nightly
cron script. They may run it occasionally for security updates, but
"accidentally" starting an major upgrade ("1047 packages to upgrade,
1.3Gb, Continue?") doesn't seem very likely.
I admit it's a toss up, you'll probably confuse a certain subset of
people either way. And "First, do no harm" implies that we should switch
to promoting the use of code names in apt-sources.
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org