On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Brian van den Broek <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > The Debian FAQ bases its unstable over testing recommendation on the > fear of a degenerate case: A package breaks in testing, a patch to fix > it lands in unstable and, before the 10 days elapse, another patch > lands on that same package in unstable, reseting the 10-day clock. > Repeat enough times and testing can be broken for long stretches. > > That this is possible seems a consequence of the migration policy, but > I do wonder how often that occurs.
It can happen. In thoses cases you can always resort to pinning the package on unstable though. As for how often, your guess is as good as mine. [..] > I used pinning a bit on ubuntu and crunchbang. It mostly worked. Using > losts of pinning on a test box convinced me not to use lots of pinning That wouldn't be lots. One pin to make sure unstable can be included in sources but packages never automatically installed. I've used this successfully on my system a long while for testing package upgrades between precise, quantal, unstable. [...] > OK, thanks. I'll be sure to point to the testing repos before I add > anything else. (Would it be better to install stable and immediate > point at testing or install stable, update what came in off the live > CD I've got, and then point to testing?) Up to you. There isn't likely to be a huge difference. If what you want is to use unstable (that's what I'd use), it's going to be much less painful to go straight to it, I think. It's going to take much less time at least. Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre <[email protected]> Freenode: cyphermox, Jabber: [email protected] 4096R/EE018C93 1967 8F7D 03A1 8F38 732E FF82 C126 33E1 EE01 8C93 _______________________________________________ mlug mailing list [email protected] https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca
