Re: question for sources.list
Paul E Condon wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 12:09:39AM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 02:48:33PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
"Don't use release code names in configuring the apt system."
seems to me to be a good general rule.
As a comment to those who have used code names and think they
work: They work only if you have only one release in your sources.list,
and then they don't really work, they just don't matter because
there is never a choise of release to be made.
Personally, I was rather disappointed when I first made this discovery
in apt/preferences. I thought I had figured out a neat lazy-man's way
to handle the transitions from one stable release to the next. But I
won't describe it because I have established that it doesn't work.
I have to agree that this is disappointing. I had thought it made sense
to use the release names so that you weren't forced into an upgrade you
weren't prepared to do. Not that one could be surprised by the release
of a new version....
I confess my vast ignorance of how all the developers, release
managers, etc do their work on debian, but isn't the whole point of
the operation to provide us, as users, with a system that is as
easy as possible to use (without MS-type dumbing down, of course)?
When we start with debian, we learn about "stable", "testing", etc
(by the way, what's the correct word for these things? Are they
different releases? distributions? flavours? versions? ...?). We
decide what sort of life we want to lead and pick the appropriate
thing ("woody", sarge", "etch"...). When a new thingummy becomes
the official stable and the others move up, we take advice (from
this list, probably) about when to dist-upgrade. We're in control
of our system and know that a word like "stable" is not suddenly
going to point to something quite different.
What prevents a regular apt-get upgrade from rolling you from woody into
sarge? I'm not a complete n00b, but fresh enough to think that if you're
set to "stable" that your regular upgrade would have done that. If I had
been running stable when sarge was moved up, would my apt-get upgrades
have styed pointed to woody until I dist-upgraded? I'm not sure now. My
understanding was that by using stable (which I don't BTW) you were
assured to get the new release when it came out, but that the system was
so well controlled that you'd likely not notice (except for the massive
amount of packages being replaced;)
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 stand corrected, and thanks. I made an assumption in that section of
my response and consequently made an ass out of Uma Thurmond.