On 2021-06-27 at 03:48, Francesco Florian wrote: > On Sa, 26 Jun 2021, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > >> [1] unless you're one of those still running dist-upgrade for every >> security update, just because `apt-get` doesn't install new >> packages by default. > > Actually, I'm one of those running on testing, since I believe it's > stable enough for my workflow on a desktop (I snapshot the / and > /home volumes before any upgrade, but in about 5 years I never had to > rollback). > > I didn't mean that tracking stable instead of buster is what > everybody wants, just that it is a possibility, especially on > desktop, provided you have backups (which you should have anyway). For tracking testing, as I also do, using the symbolic name rather than the explicit codename can make sense. I actually track stable + testing, by those names, so that if a package in stable is removed from testing I still have access to install it if I discover the need to do so. For that purpose, using the symbolic name for stable also makes sense. However, for someone tracking *purely* stable without bringing in any of the other repositories, I have to agree with those who advocate against using that name instead of the release codename. I haven't been able to think of any reasons why using the symbolic name in that case would make sense, and I find the arguments about why doing so can lead to problems to be persuasive. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature