On Monday 02 November 2009 13:47:05 Celejar wrote: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:38:55 -0600 > "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > system anyway. Either that or run pure unstable and have to fight > > dependencies during each transition (many of which happen during a > > release cycle). > > > > By the time you have enough knowledge to run a mixed system and/or > > fight those dependencies, you might as well run stable for most > > software, which occasional installs out of > > testing/unstable/experimental for the new features you need or > > development you are following. > > I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by 'fighting > dependencies'. I run Sid, and while I occasionally have to hold back > a few packages, and can't always do a complete, full upgrade, it's > simply a matter of holding back a few packages until they get into sync > again; I certainly don't have the skill to do anything particularly > sophisticated with dependencies. That, among other things, is exactly what I mean by fighting dependencies. Sometimes I am not happy with a package that is held back, which calls for more dependency wrangling. Downgrade or upgrade something else, de-install some software I'm not really using right now (like a Recommend or Suggest), satisfy an OR dependency with a different package, or some combination of the three. Keeping the number of packages I pull from testing/unstable/experimental as minimal as possible results in more (aptitude safe-upgrade)s that "just work". Mixed systems are just as "supported" as running testing or unstable, which is to say, not officially. IME, they result in a system with the advantages of both stable and unstable. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.