On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:45:45PM +0100, Lee Braiden wrote: > On Wednesday 08 Jun 2005 20:17, Jim Hall wrote: > > Now that Sarge is released, do I need to point 'update' & 'upgrade' to > > "stable", or leave Sarge as the target? > > No, you can do nothing, if you like. > > Pointing it to "stable" would only do something once the next release > happens. > Then, the new "stable" would be uhh... whatever that new name is, and then ^^^^^^^^ etch
> you'd see lots of upgradable packages. For now, it'll make no difference. > > Basically, if you intend to specifically use sarge and nothing else, put > sarge > in there. You might do that if sarge does what you need and you're following > the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy. > > On the other hand, if you intend to keep upgrading to the most modern stable > system available, and you don't want to manually do the switch (although > it'll essentially be manual anyway) use "stable". By specifying "sarge", you will have control over when the huge upgrade from sarge to etch happends. This might be what you want on a mission-critical system if, say, you don't want everything changing the day your major project is due. By specifying "stable", the upgrade to etch will happen more-or-less when Debian decides etch is stable, > > -- > Lee. > > Please do not CC replies directly to me. I'll read them on the list. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]