[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian SID or Wheezy/SID?

Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > What would happen if I would commented wheezy lines by using a # and
> > > after that I run 'aptitude update' and 'aptitude safe-upgrade'?
> > 
> > Nothing different would happen from what you have today.  You already
> > have Sid listed in your sources.list system.  If you have upgraded to
> > Sid packages then you already have a Sid system.  Removing the Wheezy
> > lines will do nothing different than you have today.  Or leaving them
> > in.  Other than taking up more memory and running slower because of
> > the need to process so much more data, leaving those Wheezy lines in
> > won't matter either.  I would take them out just to simplify things.
> I wouldn't :D

And you post a very interesting counter-point.

> > Right about now there are ten people jumping at the chance to correct
> > me and say, no, that isn't true, Squeeze has package XYZ that was
> > removed from Sid and Wheezy, and Wheezy has the pre-transition version
> > of package ABC that was removed from Sid.  They will say that they are
> > really different.  Yes, yes, yes to all.  They are different release
> > tracks, have their own repositories.  Some individual packages or
> > transitions of packages will have been added and removed between the
> > different repositories.  Each and every one of those are special cases
> > that would need to be discussed separately.  Which is too much to talk
> > about in a quick answer so I am going to ignore this for now.
> Unless I'm misreading your paragraph above you are not mentioning the 
> case where packages are being removed from unstable temporarily, to ease 
> a (very) complicated transition.

I would say that case was covered under the very large door I opened
mentioning transitions of packages which will have been added or
removed between the different repositories.  I really didn't want to
write a reference for all possible cases.  And for example you
mentioned pinning and I left that out entirely.

> Something like "unstable users should have testing in their 
> sources.list, period." has been posted a few years ago by a member of 
> the Release Team (Adeodato Simò, if memory serves me) and my reading of 
> -devel and -devel-announce didn't suggest any (major) change in this 
> recommendation.

That is a very interesting point.  I had not encountered that strategy
before.  Hmm...  Would keeping Testing in the list along with Sid make
for a system where things are generally more installable?  It probably
would!  I will need to consider this longer but I think you have
raised a very good point and have convinced me that Testing+Unstable
is a valid and useful combination that exists between them.

For me on Sid systems I already have installed everything that I want
to install.  So temporary transitions where packages have been removed
only very rarely affect me.  But I am concerned about upgrades.  I
usually upgrade daily in order to be able to catch problems and file
bugs as soon to the problematic upload as possible.  And I am
concerned about upgrades from Stable so that the next release is in
good shape for things I care about.  But I haven't been focusing on
whether something I care about is installable or not in Unstable.  I
am confident that won't slip into a release.  If I run into a problem
with an uninstallable package in Unstable I simply deal with it at the
time that it happens.  It isn't unusual to have a package that is
uninstallable in Sid due to broken dependencies.  But when I hit those
problems I usually use the archive.debian.net repository and manually
select a contour version of packages.  For many people being able to
select versions from Testing seems easy and reasonable.

> Hmm, maybe I should try to get the Release Team's current opinion on 
> this and suggest a patch for the Debian Reference...

If you do then I would be very interesting to know the result.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: