Re: Debian Desktop for a Joe Average
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 08:40:40PM +0200, David Fokkema wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 16:58, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:43:26AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Don't go directly from stable to unstable!! Too radical
> > It's not significantly more radical than stable to testing. I don't
> > think there's much benefit in trying to go from stable to unstable via
> > testing, especially considering that there are things broken in testing
> > that work in unstable for one reason or another (e.g. apt-listchanges).
> I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you on this one. Several people on
> this list have complained about broken dependencies and uninstallable
> packages when upgrading from stable to unstable. Upgrading to testing
> and then to unstable solved their problems. I was one of them and IIRC,
> I've responded to at least two others on this list with the same
> problems. When I bought my new laptop only a few weeks ago I had to deal
> with the same issues. Going through testing solved them all.
FWIW, I go from stable->unstable all the time, perhaps in a "better
way". I install the base system only, during setup I don't run tasksel
or dselect. Then, I install patch and aptitude from Woody, which picks
a strange libstdc++ dependency. Then, I change my sources list to
unstable, and upgrade the base only. Finally, I only install the rest
of the system from unstable.
I bet if I had a whole *bunch* of Woody installed and did an upgrade I'd
see what you're seeing, and sometimes unstable is just broken anyway.
But a couple times a week I blow away my system and do a fresh reinstall
of everything (I've automated it to 30 minutes, including personal
settings, everything). I believe in disposable systems (ala google or