On 4/1/20 6:46 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 01 apr 20, 15:49:25, dalios wrote: >> On 3/30/20 2:26 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: >> >>>> [...] and still retain testing in sources.list (having testing in >>> sources.list when running unstable is a good idea anyway). >> >> Can you be so kind and explain to me how is that a good idea? I am >> _definitely not_ as knowledgeable as you are, but that sounds strange >> enough to make me wonder what have I missed... >> >> I have only tried unstable twice and only on secondary machines, just >> for experimenting. This question is only for learning purpose. > > The recommendation is based on the statement of a Debian Release Manager > some years ago[1]. > > Basically it may happen that a particular package is removed from > unstable, which will also affect other packages that depend on it. > > With testing in sources.list the package can be installed from there > instead. > > Because apt[2] by default prefers newer versions of a package, if a > package is available in unstable and testing with different versions the > unstable version will be preferred. > > So the only downsides I can think of would be slightly longer download > times on 'apt update' and possibly a late alert that a specific package > is being removed from Debian (typically packages are removed from > testing first, but it may happen the other way around as well). > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00582.html > [2] and other package managers like aptitude, etc. > > Hope this explains, > Andrei >
Thanks for the explanation. Dalios
