Re: Switching to Debian (from Fedora)
On 8/23/05, Kent West <westk@acu.edu> wrote:
> Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:43:23AM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I would recommend duplicating the Stable lines, rather than replacing
> >>them. Then replace the "stable" or "sarge" in the first (top) set with
> >>your release of choice.
> >>
> >>This way, the system can fall back to packages in Stable if it (or you)
> >>need(s) to.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If you do this, it will pick the stable package is there is no testing
> >package available.
> >
> Yes, this is what I meant. If package 'foo' in unstable is dependent on
> 'bar' which is not in unstable but is in stable, you may still be able
> to install 'foo' using stable's version of 'bar' as the dependency.
>
> > But taking out the lines containing "testing"
> >won't give you a downgrade if you decide you want to go back.
> >Downgrading isn't so easy.
> >
> >
> This is not what I meant, but I'm glad you mentioned it since I failed
> to make myself clear.
>
> >>Also, don't change the "security" line; leave it at stable.
> >>
> >>
> >testing doesn't get the so-called security upgrades, which are
> >carefully chosen upgrades for stable to maintain security while
> >changing as little as possible. Testing gets lots and lots
> >of updates instead.
> >
> >
> >
> It's my understanding that because of their high-priority nature,
> security updates go into Stable even before they sometimes make it into
> Testing (or perhaps, Unstable?). So a Testing system with the stable
> security line is more likely to get patched more quickly than waiting
> for the normal influx of packages into Testing.
>
> My understanding may very well be amiss, however.
No. Say that stable has foobar version 1.0.4-1, and testing has foobar 1.0.5-1.
Now there's a security fix. Stable-security gets 1.0.4-1sarge1 or
similar, unstable gets 1.0.5-2. However, testing still has 1.0.5-1,
which is newer than 1.0.4-1sarge1. It will be at least two days until
the unstable fix gets into testing.
Reply to: