Re: Backports on Squeeze
On 20120704_090212, Chris Bannister wrote:
> 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" :)
>
Thanks, Chris and Cameleon.
I was misunderstanding the situation. The further discussion has
helped greatly. I don't have a current need, but when I do, I will be
able to go through the drill with much greater confidence. I'm satisfied
with my new understanding. No need for further puzzlement about what
I want.
Best regards
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@mesanetworks.net
Reply to: