On 2021-09-03 at 15:16, Brian wrote: > On Fri 03 Sep 2021 at 13:40:52 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 06:24:31PM +0100, Brian wrote: >>> Surely - if you have a package installed from a previous release, >>> it does not get removed simply because testing does not have it? >> >> Correct. >> >>> It looks to me that the first line in sources.list does not help >>> in this situation. >> >> Also correct, *but* it does help if you want to install something from >> stable that has been removed from testing. >> >> In the absence of "pinning", using the two lines that The Wanderer >> posted would give you a testing system, with the option to pull in >> packages from stable if needed. It's a viable setup. Sensible. > > The bit that neeeds emphasising is > > ...give you a testing system. > > That is what the second entry in sources.list does. > > It doesn't matter what the other line is, the user is working > with a testing system. That is where the packages come from. > > Having said that, the option to pull in packages from stable > as needed is moot, apart from security updates or absence on > testing. It looks like cargo cult. Absence in testing is the specific reason why I still include that line: in case I need to install a package because I need its functionality, but it's been temporarily removed from testing for whatever reason. That scenario has actually arisen a handful of times over the years, and the rest of the time, having the line included doesn't seem to have done any harm. -- 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