Bug#764982: Backports, where is the danger (why the FUD)

2015-04-20 Thread Philip Hands
Turbo Fredriksson tu...@bayour.com writes: On Apr 19, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Did you check if it really was back ports? Yes. I've been using Debian GNU/Linux since.. 'bo' or something and a DD since '97 or so. I know what I'm doing (98% of the time :). I use backports

Bug#764982: Backports, where is the danger (why the FUD)

2015-04-20 Thread Turbo Fredriksson
On Apr 19, 2015, at 10:48 PM, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Backports main is official Debian. [1] You misunderstand the announcement. … official Debian service … Notice the last word here! It say service. Not 'official _PART_ of Debian'! -- Life sucks and then you die -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Bug#764982: Backports, where is the danger (why the FUD)

2015-04-20 Thread Turbo Fredriksson
On Apr 20, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Philip Hands wrote: Turbo Fredriksson tu...@bayour.com writes: Good for you. Maybe it's better now, but my opinion still stands. Well, that's a jolly constructive attitude, well done. Not how I meant it, but thanx for misunderstanding. I meant that my opinion

Bug#764982: Backports, where is the danger (why the FUD)

2015-04-19 Thread Paul van der Vlis
Op 19-04-15 om 20:59 schreef Turbo Fredriksson: On Apr 19, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Geert Stappers wrote: What is the danger of having backports (default) enabled? From what I've seen (when I tried it a couple of years ago), is that the back porting is quite … sloppy. If the package needs a newer

Bug#764982: Backports, where is the danger (why the FUD)

2015-04-19 Thread Paul van der Vlis
Op 19-04-15 om 22:00 schreef Turbo Fredriksson: If someone wants newer version, they can (should!) upgrade to the newer distribution. OR, if they're brave, use back ports. Do you mean upgrade to testing? Nobody gets a newer version by enabling backports in sources.list, you only get a newer

Bug#764982: Backports, where is the danger (why the FUD)

2015-04-19 Thread Geert Stappers
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 07:35:21PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: On Apr 19, 2015, at 7:15 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Do you see that ?but?? That's exactly why it's not safe to have this turned on by default. Thank you KiBi! I defiantly don't want back ports enabled by default!

Bug#764982: Backports, where is the danger (why the FUD)

2015-04-19 Thread Turbo Fredriksson
On Apr 19, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Geert Stappers wrote: What is the danger of having backports (default) enabled? From what I've seen (when I tried it a couple of years ago), is that the back porting is quite … sloppy. If the package needs a newer lib, that is back ported as well. And the newer lib

Bug#764982: Backports, where is the danger (why the FUD)

2015-04-19 Thread Turbo Fredriksson
On Apr 19, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Did you check if it really was back ports? Yes. I've been using Debian GNU/Linux since.. 'bo' or something and a DD since '97 or so. I know what I'm doing (98% of the time :). I use backports on all machines I care about, and I never had