Re: sources.list directory specification
Dne 2.9.2011 14:18, piše Scott Ferguson:
On 02/09/11 19:37, Dejan Ribič wrote:
Dne 02. 09. 2011 07:19, piše Scott Ferguson:
On 02/09/11 03:06, Tom H wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:13 AM,<email@example.com> wrote:
I'd be cautious about enabling backports, proposed, and, especially,
multimedia - except on a case-by-case basis (enable when needed,
install only what cannot be got from the standard repo, disable when
well I've been using the backports and proposeds for awhile now and
everything works perfectly, besides Debian Backports are official part
of Debian as far as I know, so there is at least some QA involved, I
Please don't be offended, it's not a criticism of your choices, or
implying that those (backports and proposed) repositories are full of
flakey packages. Multimedia is not flakey either *but* it will cause
problems unless you are careful.
Backports are (often) rebuilt to use libraries they were not designed
for (they are a compromise)[*1], Proposed is just that (in *testing*
for the point release). Most of the time you won't have problems, and
if you do, it'll usually be with backports. Backports *is* an official
repository - as are all repositories hosted by Debian - but QA testing
on backport packages is limited (and backports are there for
convenience, not as proposed fixes for problems), whereas proposed QA
is wider (but still requires your testing before being eligible for
Enabling those repositories on a constant basis means you have no idea
what will come down if you go:-
# apt-get update; apt-get upgrade (or dist-upgrade)
This can make live interesting, but it robs you of the control you
exercise when you enable selectively eg. I want the latest version of
Amarok because it has x, but everything else is to my satisfaction.
If you always enable proposed, and backports, and, have never had any
issues, then maybe you've not been running them for many years. My
experiences may just be a KDE4/qt/dbus/grub thing.
You may also be using the context of a hobby desktop, not a production
environment where any minor conflict can be considered a major issue
(people file service requests instead of working etc).
I'll stick to "enable when needed" as I don't believe "enable just in
case I need it" is a good idea in the long term, and I'm interested in
the long term :-)
[*1]"It is recommended to select single backports which fit your
needs, and not to use all available backports."
[*2]"..., packages in stable-proposed-updates aren't yet officially
part of Debian Stable and one should not assume is has the same
quality and stability (yet!). Those new versions of the packages needs
to be reviewed (by the stable release manager) and tested (by some
users) before entering stable."
NOTE: stable is not the only branch that receives updates
You are right in that I have a limited experience with backports, for
instance I've never used KDE4/Qt( well except QtOctave, but thats not
even in backports).
On another note I do have a Debian server with Squeeze installed and on
that machine I use neither, which also stores my monthly(/home/ backed
up weekly) CloneZilla images of the desktop PC, so maybe that is why I
use backports/proposed freely, because I know that if I mess up
something I can simply restore it with minimal loss of time or data.
My point is I agree with you, if you are using production machine and
you can't afford that some simple package like for instance Amarok
breaks it then it is best to "enable when needed".