On Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:56:23 AM Russ Allbery wrote: > 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.
Agreed. FWIW, Ubuntu has done this with their backports repositories for the last two years of releases and it seems to be working well (exactly as you suggest it will for Debian). Scott K -- 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/3060684.Mtj6vbfRpJ@scott-latitude-e6320
