On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 03:17:34PM +1000, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > why the obsession with backports? > > contrary to popular belief and self-delusion, 'stable+backports' is NO > LONGER STABLE. > > 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'. to get that crucially important 'benefit', you're > using packages from a repository with unsigned packages by unknown > maintainers. > > > 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.
There is a very good reason to prefer backports over unstable/testing packages got with pinning: the glibc. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
