On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 07:35:21PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > On Apr 19, 2015, at 7:15 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > > > Do you see that ?but?? That's exactly why it's not safe to have this > > turned on by default. > > > Thank you KiBi! I defiantly don't want back ports enabled by default! > > _I_ don't trust them (even if "the rest of the world" do - I have the > right to my opinion after all). > > And just because you, Paul, do trust them and enable them on everything, > doesn't mean everyone else is comfortable with it. There is a potential > risk with them (as KiBi pointed out) so having them in the file, but > commented out (don't know if that was the solution, or removing them > all together) seems like the most prudent option.
What is the danger of having backports (default) enabled? I do see the FUD and I want to call it Fear Uncertainty and Doubt! And it is that I want to go beyond the FUD. So what is the danger that I do see yet? > I also see this as a non-issue (and yet I had to voice my opinion - I must > be more bored than I thought :). I wasn't bored and did read https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=764982#15 So now I have a nice opportunity to quote Joey Hess apt won't install newer versions from backports unless the user explicitly specifies -t $suite-backports previous in this BR Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
