Re: System maintenance
* Kevin Mark (kevin.mark@verizon.net) wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
Hello Kevin,
> the best option if you want stability and (little or) no breakage is to
> run 'stable'. This is what Debian releases. Although there is now
> security support for testing also.
I had actually intended initially to install Stable, but had troubles
with the installer. In the end it turned out to be an unreliable cd
drive that was causing my troubles, but I didn't know that at the
time, and so I ended up using etch later. I figured that as a
Slackware guy I would end up wishing I had found a way to install
stable, but as this is all kind of an experiment perhaps it will work
out okay.
I also kind of assumed that like the last three or four times I tried
Debian I would get very frustrated and go back, but I have surprised
myself in how much I have actually enjoyed it this time round. I
think something changed in the installer and I actually managed a
better install than I had before, though maybe I just did a better job
of reading. But, in any case, I am learning a great deal about Debian
and have certainly decided to keep the system and so my decision of
testing vs stable has taken on a greater significance than I had
thought it would when I first started to consider it.
> >=20
> 'apt-get update' gets the latest information about what packages have
> been updated but does not install them. 'apt-get upgrade' installs (but
> does not remove) the new packages while 'apt-get dist-upgrade' can both
> install and remove packages. This is a paraphrase, so read 'man apt-get'
> for more complete info.=20
I have been debating just which I should go with, upgrade or
dist-upgrade. If I had stable I would almost certainly go with
upgrade, but I can't help but think that since I am certainly going to
get more than security patches then perhaps dist-upgrade will apply
better. I have noticed that apparently the little notification tool
in Gnome uses dist-upgrade, so I would assume that at some level
somebody thinks of that as default, though just whom and why I
couldn't say.
=20
> Using stable is the main benefit to Debian. If you do not use stable
> (like me, as I use unstable), then all the above does not apply. You
> have to update/dist-upgrade as often as you can to keep up with bugs and
> security issues and the chance of installing something that may break
> your system is not as near to zero as it is with stable. This does not
> mean that Debian unstable is horrible and broken, it just takes more
> effort to keep working, secure and up-to-date which is why I use
> apt-listbugs and apt-changes!
I am not familiar with apt-listbugs and apt-changes. What are those?
One thing that I am now curious about is the setup of sources.list and
the release of the next stable. For instance, my sources.list was
initially setup with entries for 'etch' such as "deb
http://ftp.ndlug.nd.edu/mirrors/debian/ etch main contrib non-free" I
have seen online some people have 'testing' where mine says etch.
Would having etch mean that when the next release of stable comes out,
which I am gathering will be etch, I will then be running stable? Or
is there some other entry somewhere that makes what I am using remain
'testing'? The reason I ask is that come that day I am not sure if I
will want to continue to follow testing or possibly have stable, but
it seems that it may be a good time to consider just drifting up to
stable. In the meantime I cannot imagine how a person would switch
=66rom testing to stable without a full reinstall. Is that right?
Many thanks
Patrick
Reply to: