Re: Backports on Squeeze
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 12:17:39PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
>
> Let me join in the discussion of what I intended by my badly
> worded request:
>
> 1. I need a way of learning the name of the package that might help
> with some problem, a place on the web where I can pick up search terms
> on a topic with which I am not familiar. At the beginning of my
> search, I simply don't know what to type in the search box. In the
> particular case of backports of packages that I am already using
> and are serving me well enough as is, but might have a backport that
> is actually much better, how do I discover that backport? But more
> likely situation is that I have tried and found wanting the package
> in the original release, but would revisit the issue if I knew their
> was a backport. Tracking backports of software that I am somehow
> able to live without is not something to which I can allot much time.
> But I might be missing out on some really neat stuff.
Add backports to your sources, update, then spend some time comparing
your favourite packages, see answer to 2+3. Remember a package may be
backported at anytime, so you may need to check more than once.
Honestly, if you are that worried about newer software and don't have a
real reason for running "stable" (and if you have backports in your
sources, it can be argued that you are no longer running stable anyway),
why not run testing?
> 2. If I do decide to put squeeze-backports in my sources.list, will
> the backported packages be displayed in the interactive browser?
Yes, should be. Disclaimer: I don't run aptitude or synaptic.
> 3. If they are displayed in interactive mode, will I be able to tell
> that they are backports? (so that I can exercise that extra caution
> that has been recommended in this thread)
There is normally a "bpo" string somewhere in the version string, but I
presume (see answer to 2) that the repository from which the package(s)
belong(s) to will be shown.
> These are questions that are quite low priority because I am generally
> quite satisfied with the pace of development in Debian. If the
> answers indicate that using backports is not for me, I'll not
> complain.
I think if you are running a production system, then you should be
intimate enough with the software to know when a new feature is wanting
etc, etc.
Otherwise, it is just wanting to "be up with the Joneses" :)
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Reply to: