On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 03:49:08AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> why I'd never use it. So I'd be for one of these two:
> -removing the public link to 'stable'
> -putting a strong warning in the Debian reference about the hazards of
> using it.
> So if someone uses 'stable', do tell. And if so, would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:18:37AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 21:44 -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
> > Gentlefolk:
> >
> >The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
> > vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to off
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:12:48PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:06:01PM -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
> >
> >I'm pointing out that the `stable' distro becomes
> > massively unstable periodically. Admitted, that period is
> > on the order of multiple years, but it _is
Max Hyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I'm pointing out that the `stable' distro becomes
> massively unstable periodically. Admitted, that period is
> on the order of multiple years, but it _is_ being shortened.
> Additionally, the people least likely to be able to handle a
> badly- or non-wor
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:06:01PM -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
>
>I'm pointing out that the `stable' distro becomes
> massively unstable periodically. Admitted, that period is
> on the order of multiple years, but it _is_ being shortened.
> Additionally, the people least likely to be able to handl
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:18:37AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > You propose to eliminate "stable" as a release. To keep
> > people from hurting themselves. Especially unwitting
> > "auto-updating" ID10Ts. Ok, let me get this
> > straight... How is this a good thing?
Paul Condon opined:
> Greg,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Sneep wrote:
[snip]
>> just a guess, but maybe so that no matter when you install, that
>> install disk will get you moving into stable. so you could use a
>> really old installer and automatically move right up to stable with
>> the next dist-upgr
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:44:10PM -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
>The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
> vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to offer
> `stable' as an entry in sources.list? Its drawback seems to
> be:
>
> o Every so often `stable' whacks you with about
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:18:37AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 21:44 -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
> > Gentlefolk:
> >
> >The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
> > vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to offer
> > `stable' as an entry in sources.list? I
Max Hyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>So, my modest suggestion is that `stable' as a name
> should be eradicated. Roughly no downside, only closer
> adherence to the principle of least astonishment.
If you remove 'stable', then you kind of have to remove 'testing' too.
Otherwise, people who
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 21:44 -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
> Gentlefolk:
>
>The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
> vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to offer
> `stable' as an entry in sources.list? Its drawback seems to
> be:
>
> o Every so often `stable' whacks you w
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:44:10PM -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
>Gentlefolk:
>
>The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
> vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to offer
> `stable' as an entry in sources.list? Its drawback seems to
> be:
>
> o Every so often `stable' wh
Gentlefolk:
The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to offer
`stable' as an entry in sources.list? Its drawback seems to
be:
o Every so often `stable' whacks you with about
seventeen million updates, with the chance that
On Thu, 3 May 2007 11:24:56 -0400
"Jan Sneep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andrew Sackville-West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: May 3, 2007 10:44 AM
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> &
On 5/3/07, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.03.1434 +0200]:
> > Exactly my opinion too, i was more interested in hearing why I would
> > wan't stable instead of the hardcoded name. I just can't think of any
> > r
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.03.1434 +0200]:
> > Exactly my opinion too, i was more interested in hearing why I would
> > wan't stable instead of the hardcoded name. I just can't think of any
> > reason to do that and practically have really use f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Sneep wrote:
[snip]
>
> I just check my sources.list file and interestingly the default when doing a
> clean NetInst is to point to the Etch folders on the miror site, not
> "stable".
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Sackville-West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: May 3, 2007 11:54 AM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Dangers of "stable" in sources.list
>
>
> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 11:24:56AM -0400, Jan Sneep
"Martin Marcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you generally use stable in your sources.list or do you actually
> use sarge/etch/whatever.
I usually use the code names, mostly because lately when I have
installed a new system, the testing distro had gotten far enought hat I
feel comfortable ru
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 11:24:56AM -0400, Jan Sneep wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andrew Sackville-West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: May 3, 2007 10:44 AM
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > Subject: Re: Dangers of "stable
On Thu, 3 May 2007 11:24:56 -0400
"Jan Sneep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had a NetInstall CD of Sarge that I made in January and when I did
> the update last week I lost everything. I found I couldn't use that
> CD it get Etch installed. It would crap-out because it was trying to
> replace the
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Sackville-West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: May 3, 2007 10:44 AM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Dangers of "stable" in sources.list
>
> mildly humorous to think someone could be *surprised* by a de
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:49:24AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Martin Marcher wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On 5/3/07, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>[2007.05.03.1217 +0200]:
> >>> So what are the hints wether to use stable the actual na
also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.03.1434 +0200]:
> Exactly my opinion too, i was more interested in hearing why I would
> wan't stable instead of the hardcoded name. I just can't think of any
> reason to do that and practically have really use for it (except for
> the testing
Martin Marcher wrote:
Hi,
On 5/3/07, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[2007.05.03.1217 +0200]:
> So what are the hints wether to use stable the actual name or not?
From my book:
Exactly my opinion too, i was more interested in he
Hi,
On 5/3/07, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.03.1217 +0200]:
> So what are the hints wether to use stable the actual name or not?
From my book:
Exactly my opinion too, i was more interested in hearing why I would
wan't
also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.03.1217 +0200]:
> So what are the hints wether to use stable the actual name or not?
From my book:
… and the \release{stable} and \release{testing} symlinks changed
to point to the next release generation. For this reason, it is
advisa
27 matches
Mail list logo
