Re: Eliminating upgrade confusion
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 08:12:27PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> David Jardine wrote:
> > The enormous confusion arising from the release of sarge seems
> > to have arisen from the use of the words "stable" and "testing".
>
> Not familiar with this enormous confusion.
Well, I've seen seen some of your helpful replies to a number of
questions on this list in the last few days, so I can't believe
you're not familiar with it.
>
> > Somebody who was running stable didn't want woody to be replaced
> > by sarge without his being asked. Somebody running testing didn't
> > want to move from sarge to etch automatically. (Sid seems to be
> > the only stable one.)
>
> No, you are describing people who are running woody and sarge and should
> have those in their sources.list.
Exactly. But do we realise, as beginners, what the implications
are of putting "stable" or "testing" in sources.list? If we
didn't know we could use these words (or if we knew we couldn't),
we wouldn't. But we do and we get ourselves into a mess. I think
you're overestimating the ability of people like me to really grasp
the whole picture.
> > Wouldn't things work more smoothly if "stable" and "testing" were
> > not allowed in /etc/apt/sources.list or anywhere else except as
> > purely informative descriptions?
>
> It would suck, because all my systems that constantly track testing
> couldn't. The stable release is irellivant, I want these machines to
> continue to track testing. Just for example.
But surely this is just a question of changing something once every
couple of years and being in control of the time you change it. For
someone who knows his way around the system I can't see that this
would be a problem.
--
David Jardine
"Running Debian GNU/Linux and
loving every minute of it." -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895)
Reply to: