Re: Dangers of "stable" in sources.list
Martin Marcher wrote:
As soon as I read the recommendation in Martin Krafft's book, I
immediately changed all the lines in my sources.list from stable to
sarge - if I hadn't, I expect I would have been very unpleasantly
surprised upon doing my first apt-get upgrade following Etch becoming
stable. Thanks Martin!
On 5/3/07, martin f krafft <email@example.com> wrote:
also sprach Martin Marcher <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> So what are the hints wether to use stable the actual name or not?
From my book:
Exactly my opinion too, i was more interested in hearing why I would
wan't stable instead of the hardcoded name. I just can't think of any
reason to do that and practically have really use for it (except for
the testing or unstable distribution as I pointed out initially)
Am I solving problems here that wouldn't exist in the first place?
Am I ignorant of why there is a "stable" tree (apart from the
psychological impact that it now indeed is stable)?
And ever since, I've wondered why the default sources.list specifies
"stable" instead of a specific distribution. It seems like a recipe for
disaster for an awful lot of people.