Re: "best practices" on debian
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 09:46:36PM +0900, Akira Kitada wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 11:51:10AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I agree with those who've mentioned /usr/local. Trying to mix testing
> > and unstable is likely to be confusing, particularly if you're new to
> > Debian.
>
> like what curse happen?
> Show me some cases if you don't mind.
> though I've been using mixture of testing and unstable,
> I've never met any disastar... yet.
Let's take an example from the C++ transition, when C++ library packages
were rebuilt and got a "c102" suffix added to their name. Since the
library name itself stayed the same, the old and new packages had to
conflict. Say a group of packages depends on libfoo1 in testing, but
libfoo1c102 in unstable. If you try to install any of those from
unstable then a bunch of other packages will get removed, and
particularly if you're new to Debian you won't know why.
The perl 5.6 -> 5.8 transition was similar but worse. Python
transitions, same deal, and so on, and so forth. If something is stalled
in unstable for a long time it's often because it will cause problems if
you try to install it on a testing system.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: