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

Re: Un/Safe mixtures for Debian releases and suites [was: Re: Vulkan with Radeon RX 5700 XT]



On Sb, 10 iul 21, 14:38:39, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-07-10 at 14:18, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
> > On Sb, 10 iul 21, 06:51:43, Brian Thompson wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sat, 2021-07-10 at 13:43 +0200, tv.debian@googlemail.com wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hi, Debian unstable with bits of experimental here
> >> 
> >> Is it (usually) wise to intermix different suites?
> > 
> > It depends :)
> > 
> > In my opinion I'd say the order from less to more dangerous would
> > be:
> > 
> > 1. stable + select packages from stable-backports
> 
> > 2. oldstable + select packages from oldstable-backports-sloppy
> 
> > 3. testing + select packages from unstable
> 
> > 4. unstable + select packages from experimental
> 
> I'm a little surprised to see that you don't even mention the mix which
> I've been running for the last decade-plus: stable + testing, which
> works out to testing + select packages from stable (the ones which are
> no longer available in testing).
> 
> Do you consider that to be so dangerous as to not even be worth mentioning?

What I forgot to mention was that outside the common scenarios above you 
are pretty much on your own and you should have a good understanding of 
APT priorities and pinning (or be prepared to deal with problems).

The danger level also varies greatly on which is your "main" release.

While your testing + stable as needed mix is pretty simple[1] the 
reverse mix stable + select packages from testing requires adequate 
pinning and can quickly become problematic for anything but the simplest 
packages packages (no or very few dependencies) pulled from testing.

You should be using -backports instead or backport packages yourself if 
necessary[2].


[1] No pinning required, unless you want to have *very* good control 
over what you install from stable. A similar reasonably safe and easy 
setup is unstable + testing as needed, which is probably a good idea 
anyway, even if not well documented.

[2] If you do that you might as well consider providing them via 
-backports, with the help of a sponsor.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: