On 2021-07-11 at 03:31, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Sb, 10 iul 21, 14:38:39, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2021-07-10 at 14:18, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>> It depends :) >>> >>> In my opinion I'd say the order from less to more dangerous >>> would be: >>> >>> 1. stable + select packages from stable-backports >> >>> 2. oldstable + select packages from oldstable-backports-sloppy >> >>> 3. testing + select packages from unstable >> >>> 4. unstable + select packages from experimental >> >> I'm a little surprised to see that you don't even mention the mix >> which I've been running for the last decade-plus: stable + testing, >> which works out to testing + select packages from stable (the ones >> which are no longer available in testing). >> >> Do you consider that to be so dangerous as to not even be worth >> mentioning? > > What I forgot to mention was that outside the common scenarios above > you are pretty much on your own and you should have a good > understanding of APT priorities and pinning (or be prepared to deal > with problems). > > The danger level also varies greatly on which is your "main" > release. > > While your testing + stable as needed mix is pretty simple[1] the > reverse mix stable + select packages from testing requires adequate > pinning and can quickly become problematic for anything but the > simplest packages packages (no or very few dependencies) pulled from > testing. I can see how it could become an issue for someone who's trying to stick mainly with stable, but that's never been my goal. As soon as you dist-upgrade against the combination of testing and stable, you're primarily on testing, with stable present only as an "in case of removal" backstop. > You should be using -backports instead or backport packages yourself > if necessary[2]. I hope this is general/generic "you", and not directed at me specifically. I first read this as chiding me against running this mix, and that came across as mildly offensive. > [1] No pinning required, unless you want to have *very* good control > over what you install from stable. A similar reasonably safe and > easy setup is unstable + testing as needed, which is probably a good > idea anyway, even if not well documented. I used to track testing + unstable, which worked out to unstable + select packages from testing. That's the setup which blew up under my feet into an inconsistent, unrepairable Debian installation, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread. However, I do not blame that on the fact of running a combination of suites. I blame it on the fact of tracking unstable at all. I absolutely do not recommend tracking sid on a production system, ever. Installing specific packages from sid, carefully and only as needed, is one thing; dist-upgrade against sid is something I very strongly recommend against. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
