[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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?


David Jardine

"Running Debian GNU/Linux and
loving every minute of it."  -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895)

Reply to: