Re: upgrading ubuntu to debian
- To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: upgrading ubuntu to debian
- From: Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:33:44 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] buozm04fs7b.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com>
- Reply-to: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
- In-reply-to: <20070831155011.GA2344@digital-haze.net> (Michael Pobega's message of "Fri\, 31 Aug 2007 11\:50\:11 -0400")
- References: <1188497946.20159.1208124689@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20070830190054.GA3243@digital-haze.net> <buoabs8if9j.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com> <20070831155011.GA2344@digital-haze.net>
Michael Pobega <pobega@gmail.com> writes:
> But what if you've been using Ubuntu for seven months now, you have
> all your applications install, with all the libraries with version
> numbers like "2-3.2-ubuntu-1"?
Sure, it's not really a big deal. Those usually don't seem to be any
more incompatible than any other minor upgrade of the same package.
> You'd run into a lot more problems that way.
Not in my experience. After my "adventure" (running ubuntu for a few
months, and then returning to debian), there were a few packages hanging
around for ages with "...-ubuntu-..." versions, but they didn't cause
any obvious problems, and eventually went away in a normal upgrade.
As far as I can tell, Ubuntu is reasonably careful about keeping their
packages largely debian compatible, such that any such differences can
be handled by normal apt mechanisms. [I don't know to what extent this
is intentional policy though.]
> I've heard stories of people trying to dist-upgrade into Sid and
> hosing their entire system.
No doubt. But it's not a given. I can't really say much more given my
sample size of one... :-)
-Miles
--
.Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.
Reply to: