Re: Updating Packages in Debian Squeeze from Backports/Testing
On 06/14/2011 11:37 AM, Noah Duffy wrote:
> I've been running Debian Squeeze for a little while now. I was using
> Ubuntu before, so I'm really used to being able to keep certain
> software up-to-date using their PPA system. I'm loving Debian (even
> though I've had to make a few tweaks for it to work with my new
> system), but there are a few packages I wish were newer. Banshee is
> one of them. There have been a load of changes since the 1.6.1
> version that is in Squeeze. I can compile the new version myself, but
> have been unable to get webkit support enabled when compiling, so it
> is nicer to use a build from the repositories.
>
> I've done plenty of reading on how to enable the backports and also
> install software from testing/unstable. However, I wanted to get the
> opinion of others before I change my system for good!
>
> Is it recommended to install packages from testing? I know this often
> also updates dependencies that other software may use causing the
> system to potentially not be as secure or stable. Should I just wait
> for newer versions to maybe hit the backports repository? Or should I
> just take the longer route and compile newer versions myself (which
> sometimes doesn't always work well)?
>
> Also, if I do add the testing repositories and setup apt pinning
> and/or priority, what happens in another year or so when I try to
> upgrade my system to the next stable release? is everything going to
> work because of the pinning and priority I originally setup?
>
> I'm sorry for so many question in one mailing! And I hope I'm not
> rambling too much! My ultimate goal is to run Debian Stable but have
> a few packages and maybe the kernel (many bug fixes for my system are
> in the newer kernels) from backports/testing.
>
> Let me know what you think!
>
> Thanks,
> Noah Duffy
>
>
If it is really important to you to have more up-to-date packages, you
could upgrade to Debian Testing. It depends on what you're using the
computer for really.
Reply to: