Re: Disabling automatic upgrades on Sid by default?
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:06:22AM +0000, Lyndon Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-12-28 at 14:09 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 10:58:10PM +0000, Lyndon Brown wrote:
>...
> > > We also have to consider not
> > > only doing this for our own personal machines but also others which
> > > we
> > > may manage, like those of family members (should we choose to give
> > > them
> > > debian and not want to leave them with the "outdated" packages of
> > > stable).
> >
> > Using Debian testing or any rolling release distribution for this
> > usecase would be stupid.
> >
> > This is a clear case where everything has to be stable and non-
> > changing.
>
> I don't agree. This rather depends upon the requirements of each
> person, no?
No.
If the person needs someone else to setup/maintain the machine the
requirements are clear.
> If their machine is being used for daily work and it
> possibly becoming unusable for a day or so now and then would be a huge
> problem, then greater stability will obviously be a must and thus
> choosing rolling/testing/unstable for it would indeed be stupid. This
> will not always be the case though; not every linux family/friend
> machine we may manage needs such stability guarantees and in such cases
> they may prefer to take the risk for the benefit of getting big
> software upgrades sooner.
The benefit would be negative.
Anything rolling/changing is nice for a geek toy, in most other usecases
the best solution is to find a working setup once and avoid changes
after that.
For non-technical users it can even be a problem when a button moves or
a menu item changes.
My laptop would never run anything rolling since I must be able to rely
on that things that worked for me a year ago will still work immediately
if I have to do the same again tomorrow.
>...
> > > What would be best for most people like myself using
> > > testing/unstable
> > > as though it were a real rolling distro, who for one reason or
> > > another
> > > cannot or do not wish to move to a real "rolling" distro like arch,
> > > would be for debian to actually offer a real rolling channel
> > > alongside
> > > the stable one. Surely this would not be burdensome.
> > >
> > > As I envision it,
> > > ...
> >
> > The internet is full of people who "envision" things, and who claim
> > it
> > "would surely not be burdensome" if other people would do the actual
> > work for them.
> >
> > If you want this to happen, it is you who will have to implement and
> > maintain it.
>
> You seem to have misinterpreted what I wrote.
>
> I was comparing the resource requirements of the current model to the
> alternative I described. I was suggesting that the burden upon debian
> resources (maintainer effort, etc) would surely be little different
> from what it is now, as opposed to the alternate concept of adding a
> whole new rolling release channel alongside what we already have.
Where are the resources for implementing whatever changes you envision
in your comparison?
This work would surely be a burden noone except you would do.
There are people who are just a waste of time who are making suggestions
based on a partial understanding of a problem and without any intention
of doing actual work, and there are people who are actually bringing
things forwards by implementing their own suggestions.
In which group are you?
cu
Adrian
Reply to: