[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       debian-user
Subject:    Re: What is the recommended way to handle squeeze-proposed-updates?
From:       "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss () iguanasuicide ! net>
Date:       2011-05-19 21:01:09
Message-ID: 201105191601.10335.bss () iguanasuicide ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

In <BANLkTin7V3rEv_Zo95_2Cfrc8u=Fi96LwQ@mail.gmail.com>, Mark wrote:
>I had to add the squeeze-proposed-updates repos to my sources.list after
>learning about the intel 855gm bug in squeeze that requires a fix from the
>proposed updates section.  After apt-get update and apt-get upgrade, 13
>packages were updated/upgraded including apt.

Probably won't hurt, but stuff from s-p-u may or may not make it into the next 
point release.  I think the official recommendation is that the developers 
would love testing and feedback on packages in s-p-u, but that it shouldn't be 
enabled all the time on a production system and, when you must get a package 
from s-p-u, that you only install lit.

>Am I supposed to keep the
>proposed updates repos active in sources.list for the life of squeeze, or do
>something else?

I wouldn't.

>What if I comment it out now?

Run an update afterward and you should be fine.  Some of your packages will 
have a newer version than is available on repositories configured for the 
system, but APT has no problem resolving that.

>I want this to be a stable
>system.

You want the stable repositories, then.

Most people will also want the security repositories for stable, even if they 
do not automatically install updates from it.

A majority of people will also want the stable-updates repository (the 
replacement for volatile), it contains fairly important updates that are not 
security-related, but do not fit into the point-release schedule.  For 
examples: updates to tzdata, new SPAM rules / virus definitions, and updates 
to IM software that speaks a proprietary protocol when the controller 
incompatibly changes it.

Note that the "stable" vs. "unstable" in the names of Debian repositories 
doesn't refer to lack-of-bugs but rather lack-of-changes.  Bugs that aren't 
"release-critical" may exist in stable throughout it's life cycle, but it is 
only updated for point-releases which are quite infrequent.  On the other side 
of the coin, most of the software uploaded to unstable is considered release-
quality by upstream so, depending on the upstream, it may be relatively bug-
free and well-tested, but unstable is updated almost continuously so a system 
using is can be under quite a lot of flux.
-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                   ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net                   ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy         `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/                    \_/

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]
-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105191601.10335.bss@iguanasuicide.net


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]