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' over 'stable+some
packages from unstable or testing' is that you don't have
Bart Martens wrote:
the only 'advantage' to using 'stable+backports' over 'stable+some
packages from unstable or testing' is that you don't have that nasty
label 'unstable'.(...)
IMO, if you need a 'stable' system with some newer packages, you're
better off learning how apt's pinning
Martin Schulze schrieb am Freitag, den 20. April 2007:
Hi Joey,
*snip*
Backports are recompiled packages from testing, so they will run without
new libraries on a stable Debian distribution. It is not always
possible to install a package from testing without pulling in lots more
Le Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:11:20AM +0200, Bart Martens a écrit :
Anyhow, I think that the discussion is about getting newer upstream
releases into stable sooner.
And also about having new packages in stable...
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wako, Saitama,
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' over
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 from
6 matches
Mail list logo
