On 2021-03-23 at 07:43, Greg Wooledge wrote: > I think the request was really "Please tell us how to use this > buster-proposed-updates thing, which I've never heard of before." > > Here's a wiki page: <https://wiki.debian.org/StableProposedUpdates> > However, I would not follow its advice literally. You *never* want > to put the word "stable" in your sources.list. You want to put the > actual name of a release instead.
That depends on what your update patterns are. It's probably generally good advice, but it's certainly not universal. For myself, I have stable and testing in my sources.liist, and usually update at least weekly if not daily. This is effectively updating against testing, but keeps packages in stable which have been removed from testing available to be installed if I want them. When testing is released as stable and a new testing becomes available, I lose access to the packages which were previously in stable (now oldstable), which are old enough that it's probably not reasonable to want to install them without specifically knowing that that's what you're doing; I retain access to the packages previously in testing (because they're now in stable, which is already in my sources.list); I gain access to the new testing, to continue the pattern; and I do it all without having to update sources.list for the purpose. I don't see how that's unsafe or unreasonable; certainly I've been doing it for years, I believe for over a decade, without encountering issues which I think could even potentially be traced to it. > So, wherever the wiki says to use stable-proposed-updates, please > use buster-proposed-updates instead. This is generally reasonable, however. My update pattern is unlikely to be typical, and might be considered a special use-case. -- 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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature