Re: Easy/Fast way to view a package's debian/changelog
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:12:39PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:
> Also sprach Colin Watson (Tue 05 Aug 02003 at 02:24:39AM +0100):
> > In your place, I would go for either stable plus backported bits and
> > pieces or unstable, depending on the application. I think running mixed
> > systems is unwise, except perhaps for testing plus bits from unstable,
> > and even then I'm not sure. On my stable systems, the only
> > not-from-stable packages I run are ones which I have compiled on stable
> > from later source; this avoids the "whoops, I dragged in unstable's
> > libc6 and the world blew up" problem. The sorts of packages that you
> > most want to keep stable are often exactly the sorts of packages that
> > dependencies in testing and unstable will force you to upgrade.
> I really do want to understand this, because lately I'm being drawn more
> and more into unstable. A couple months ago, I was drawn from
> woody/stable into testing, and now my boxen are mostly testing:
> apt.conf: APT::Default-Release "testing";
> Nevertheless, empirically I know that these are valid sources:
> deb http://security.debian.org stable/updates contrib main non-free
> deb http://security.debian.org testing/updates contrib main non-free
Valid? Well, technically. The first is fine, sure, but while the second
of those exists, it is vanishingly rare for it to have anything useful
in it. AFAIK, the last time it was used was during the woody freeze.
> And, this is *NOT* valid:
> deb http://security.debian.org unstable/updates contrib main non-free
It doesn't need one. Uploads go straight into unstable, so there's no
need for a separate security archive.
> Please, correct my misunderstandings, Colin; but, what I understand from
> your message above is that, regardless of an unstable security source,
> my boxen would be better off as totally, wholly un-stable?
Either that or stable plus backports. The latter is safer but possibly
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]