martin f krafft schrieb am Thursday, den 24. January 2013: > also sprach Joerg Jaspert <jo...@debian.org> [2013.01.24.2017 +1300]: > > > And say that a year later 2.3 comes out and it's the bee's knees > > > because it fully replaces 1.1 except that the configuration cannot > > > be automatically migrated, and all the power users on #debian-devel > > > persuade you to backport it, what do you do? > > > > Backport it. Thats one of the points backports is for. I would actually > > ask wth 2.2 wasn't backported before. > > Because 2.0 drops a feature you need and introduces some bugs. Also, > the configuration needs a lot of manual work to migrate.</hypothetical> > > > > And yet, setting "ButAutomaticUpdates: yes" pretends that it's the > > > other way around. > > > > If you decide to install a backport - you do that. You decide to get > > that most recent version. Which includes keeping it most recent. > > Except ever since backports became more and more popular, causing > NotAutomatic to be set at some point in time due to popular demand, > it's been such that you decided to get the backport and if you > wanted to keep it recent, you had to do an additional step. > > Now you have to do the additional step to prevent that. Someone > just changed it for no good reason. Both ways have pros and cons. > Setting ButAutomaticUpdates certainly doesn't have enough pros to > warrant this change, just like that. The way it was before does have > a huge pro though: it's the way it's been for years. You know, never > change a winning team… the feature was introduced 08/2006 [1], which means is as old as backports without the flag.
Alex [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.backports.general/2895/focus=2907 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130125070143.gb3...@hawking.credativ.lan
