Re: question for sources.list
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 10:40:40PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 12:09:39AM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
>
> > Paul, I think you were one of those (forgive me if I'm wrong) who
> > shot me down a couple of months ago for suggesting that such words
> > as "stable", "testing" and "unstable" might better be reserved as
> > purely descriptive words for real things like "sarge" or "etch".
>
> I don't think I shot you down. In my opinion, release code names ought
> to be the primary key by which a release is designated.
>
Sorry for the misdirected accusation. It can't have been you.
> [...]
> So, until some time in the far future, people should not say to
> newbies that release code names and release status names ('stable',
> 'testing', etc.) are interchangeable. They are not. Existing support
> for release code names is, in fact, quite restricted by comparison.
I haven't talked about "interchangeability" but I have recommended
using release code names instead of release status names (thanks for
clarifying the terminology :)) in "/etc/apt/sources.list". I see
now that this can cause trouble if they extend the logic to the
"preferences" thing. I'll just shut up in future (as I always say).
Incidentally, I've noticed that the manpage for "sources.list" only
talks in terms of release status names. Is there a cut-and-dried
answer to all this? In debian policy, perhaps?
Cheers,
David
--
David Jardine
"Running Debian GNU/Linux and
loving every minute of it." -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895)
Reply to: