On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 06:32:01PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > IMO, if you need a 'stable' system with some newer packages, you're
> > better off learning how apt's pinning stuff works than bothering with
> > backports. it's not hard.
>
> The only problem with that is that you then get a wh
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:22:10AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Not that I agree with Craig's point, but you seem to be missing it here:
> AFAICS, the argument is not that backports are broken, but that they're a
> waste of time.
not exactly that they're a waste of time (that's a subjective asse
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 05:34:39PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > and the same is true of packages in backports. a serious bug can break
> > your system (or, at least, require significant effort to get it back to
> > a known good state).
>
> I argue that the probability of a serious bug in testing
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 03:17:34PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:23:58PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070415 21:01]:
> > > I think testing already supports that to some extent, and that the bits
> > > where it does not can be w
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 05:36:57PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> When using a backports package, the breakage is confined to that
> >> package. When pulling in newer libs aswell, it might be that some
> >> totally unrelated part of the system, e.g. anot
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 05:34:39PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:21:39PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> > 1. why is this allegedly a 'benefit'? what's so special about libraries?
> >> > why is a new libc6 or libssl etc more scary than a new apache or php
> >> > etc?
>
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:52:34PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 19:43 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> > 1. why is this allegedly a 'benefit'? what's so special about
>> > libraries?
>> > why is a new libc6 or libssl etc more scary
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:21:39PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> > 1. why is this allegedly a 'benefit'? what's so special about libraries?
>> > why is a new libc6 or libssl etc more scary than a new apache or php
>> > etc?
>>
>> - because it's much hard
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 08:40:37PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> Or take Ubuntu. They are delivering what is mainly testing/unstable with
good point.
> (2) Why is "testing" the preparation for the next stable release?
>
> I know the deal... "testing" is frozen and becomes the new stable
> relea
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:52:34PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 19:43 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > 1. why is this allegedly a 'benefit'? what's so special about
> > libraries?
> > why is a new libc6 or libssl etc more scary than a new apache or php
> > etc?
>
> When usi
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 19:43 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 1. why is this allegedly a 'benefit'? what's so special about
> libraries?
> why is a new libc6 or libssl etc more scary than a new apache or php
> etc?
When using a backports package, the breakage is confined to that
package. When pulling
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:21:39PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:27:48PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> >> Craig Sanders wrote:
> >> > IMO, if you need a 'stable' system with some newer packages, you're
> >> > better off learn
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 06:28:26PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:37:35AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 03:17:34PM +1000, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > IMO, if you need a 'stable' system with some newer packages, you're
> > > b
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:27:48PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
>> Craig Sanders wrote:
>> > IMO, if you need a 'stable' system with some newer packages, you're
>> > better off learning how apt's pinning stuff works than bothering with
>> > backports. it'
Und alles andre ist nicht von Belang.
AN ALLE FINANZINVESTOREN!
DIESE AKTIE WIRD DURCHSTARTEN!
FREITAG 20. APRIL STARTET DIE HAUSSE!
REALISIERTER KURSGEWINN VON 400%+ IN 5 TAGEN!
Symbol: G7Q.F
Company: COUNTY LINE ENERGY
5 Tages Kursziel: 0.95
Schlusskurs: 0.21
WKN: A0J3B0
ISIN: US2224791077
Ma
The TrackIR 4 has a wider field of view for expanded tracking area, plus
doubled resolution aned increased response time.
AN ALLE FINANZINVESTOREN!
DIESE AKTIE WIRD DURCHSTARTEN!
FREITAG 20. APRIL STARTET DIE HAUSSE!
REALISIERTER KURSGEWINN VON 400%+ IN 5 TAGEN!
Symbol: G7Q.F
Company: COUNTY LI
He practically flunked the course, though, too.
AN ALLE FINANZINVESTOREN!
DIESE AKTIE WIRD DURCHSTARTEN!
FREITAG 20. APRIL STARTET DIE HAUSSE!
REALISIERTER KURSGEWINN VON 400%+ IN 5 TAGEN!
Symbol: G7Q.F
Company: COUNTY LINE ENERGY
5 Tages Kursziel: 0.95
Schlusskurs: 0.21
WKN: A0J3B0
ISIN: US222
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:27:48PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > IMO, if you need a 'stable' system with some newer packages, you're
> > better off learning how apt's pinning stuff works than bothering with
> > backports. it's not hard.
>
> The big difference is that with
Craig Sanders wrote:
> IMO, if you need a 'stable' system with some newer packages, you're
> better off learning how apt's pinning stuff works than bothering with
> backports. it's not hard.
The big difference is that with backports, they will be built with
stable libs etc. as far as possible --
Craig Sanders wrote:
> i just don't see why people like to fool themselves that they're still
> running 'stable' when they install stuff from backports. they're not.
Maybe the difference is that the overall system is still stable with
all of its benefits, but with only a few packages pulled in fro
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 06:28:26PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> btw, debian handles upgrades of glibc really well. it hasn't been a
> problem for years (not since the libc4 -> libc6 transition, which
^
oops. typo. should be libc5.
craig
--
craig
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:11:20AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 15:17 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > contrary to popular belief and self-delusion, 'stable+backports' is NO
> > LONGER STABLE.
>
> That is of course true.
>
> > the only 'advantage' to using 'stable+backports'
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:37:35AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 03:17:34PM +1000, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > IMO, if you need a 'stable' system with some newer packages, you're
> > better off learning how apt's pinning stuff works than bothering with
> >
23 matches
Mail list logo
