Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> writes: > On 30-05-13 19:29, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Maybe the best way forward is to have backports activated by default > No. > If we're going down that route, we might as well give up on doing a > stable release. Two issues keep getting confused when people talk about this, so let me try to clarify the way that this was clarified on backport-users. The actual proposal in the bug report is to add backports.debian.org to the default sources.list file in the installer, but not otherwise change anything about the backports configuration. Specifically, the archive would remain NotAutomatic ButAutomaticUpgrades. This would *enable* users to install software from backports if it either didn't exist in stable at all or if they explicitly requested it from backports, but would not install such software by default. I think this is an excellent idea and is absolutely something we should do. backports.debian.org helps considerably in easing the pain of our long release cycle but is underadvertised. This would make using it much simpler and more straightforward for our users. What would be giving up on doing stable releases is to install software from backports by default (in other words, remove NotAutomatic). No one is proposing that. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87wqqgz708....@windlord.stanford.edu