> Problems with unstable are mostly in dependencies and pre/postinst
> scripts, and other minor packaging errors. Of course, if software you
> use a lot has a version in unstable that is actually an alpha or beta
> version, but a stable version is in woody, then you might not want to
> run all unstable.
i'll second this. i've tracked unstable for years. i pay pretty close
attention to what apt says it's going to do (like a few months ago i tried
to upgrade apache and it wanted to remove apt ... not good) but i've
rarely had a problem that i can't fix in 5-10 minutes. almost always it's
just package ordering problems not being taken care of quite right.
that being said i'm pretty careful on my server (where a 15 minute outage
is a big deal), but on my laptop it's no biggie.
> What I do is run woody, but with the unstable repositories in my
> sources.list, and APT::Default-Release "testing"; in my apt.conf.
> (see apt_preferences(5), etc.) This way, apt-get install package gets
> the package from woody, unless it only exists in unstable. apt-get
> install package/unstable gets the unstable version. apt-get -t
> unstable lets apt upgrade the dependencies to their unstable version
> if necessary.
this is really cool. guess it's been a while since i read the apt man
page! i've wanted this for so .... long ...
thanks!
adam.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
