On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:49:24AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Martin Marcher wrote: > >Hi, > > > >On 5/3/07, martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> wrote: > >>also sprach Martin Marcher <martin.marcher@gmail.com> > >>[2007.05.03.1217 +0200]: > >>> 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)? > > > 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! mildly humorous to think someone could be *surprised* by a debian release ;-O. > > 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. just a guess, but maybe so that no matter when you install, that install disk will get you moving into stable. so you could use a really old installer and automatically move right up to stable with the next dist-upgrade. also, ISTM, that if you are paying attention at all, you'd notice when the change happened. If you do a regular dist-upgrade, there will suddenly be a pile of upgrades instead of the usual trickle. THat should be enough to cause one to review what is happening and hold off on an upgrade if its necessary. .02 A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature