On 01:01 Fri 11 Nov , Joona Kiiski wrote: > > Certainly not. If you want unstable packages, then use *unstable*. If > > you want to help test the next Debian release, then use *testing*. If > > you want something that will always work, then use *stable*. > > Yes, I've tried them all. > * Unstable was a bit too unstable for my taste. > * Stable is fine, but I don't really enjoy using only old software. > Often there comes new interesting software in testing, which really is > "stable enough" for me and installing it in stable is hard > (download+check dependencies+compile+install) and could easily lead to > bad problems (library incompatibilities etc.). > * So that's why my choice is and will be testing. 98% of the time it > fits my bill perfectly. And sometimes (I hope) I can file an useful > bug report which can help the development of debian. It's just sad > that rarely testing gets 'broken' as badly as it's now, but if it > can't be avoided then it can't be avoided and that's it. I can live > with it: just postpone 'dist-upgrade' long enough or change to > unstable for a while. > This is not a perfect solution for your requirements but you could try apt-pinning. I use this setup for my amd64 with 'testing' as the default.
/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/30default-release APT::Default-Release "testing"; and /etc/apt/preferences Package: * Pin: release a=stable Pin-Priority: 700 Package: * Pin: release a=testing Pin-Priority: 600 Package: * Pin: release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 500 Package: * Pin: release a=experimental Pin-Priority: 1 see this link: http://serios.net/content/debian/apt-pinning.php? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
