On 09/12/16 00:30, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Thursday 08 December 2016 11:06:55 Martin T wrote:
>> > One more question regarding Debian backports- is it a good practice to
>> > prefer latest versions from backports(jessie-backports) by default
>> > while using stable(jessie) distribution?
>
Ok, understood. Thank you!
Martin
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Thursday 08 December 2016 11:06:55 Martin T wrote:
>> One more question regarding Debian backports- is it a good practice to
>> prefer latest versions from backports(jessie-backports)
On Thursday 08 December 2016 11:06:55 Martin T wrote:
> One more question regarding Debian backports- is it a good practice to
> prefer latest versions from backports(jessie-backports) by default
> while using stable(jessie) distribution?
Definitely not.
[snip]
> Or is it a better practice to
Hi Martin,
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:06:55PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
> is it a good practice to prefer latest versions from
> backports(jessie-backports) by default while using stable(jessie)
> distribution?
[…]
> Or is it a better practice to cherry-pick packages from "jessie-backports"?
One more question regarding Debian backports- is it a good practice to
prefer latest versions from backports(jessie-backports) by default
while using stable(jessie) distribution? I mean something like this:
# cat /etc/apt/preferences.d/00_jessie-backports
Explanation: Change pin-priority to
On 12/07/2016 12:45 AM, Martin T wrote:
Hi,
what are advantages of using Debian "backports"("jessie-backports" in
sources.list file) over "testing"("testing" in sources.list file)? As
Hi
You can't compare, they are completely different. Backport packages have
stable/Jessie compatibility.
On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 08:25:17 AM Martin T wrote:
> > On the other hand, upgrade your webserver to a backports version,
> > and the webserver has been compiled against the libs you already have.
>
> thanks! Is this also one of the reasons why not all packages in
> testing are available
Understood. Thanks!
Martin
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:25:17PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
>> Dan,
>>
>> > On the other hand, upgrade your webserver to a backports version,
>> > and the webserver has been compiled against the
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:25:17PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
> Dan,
>
> > On the other hand, upgrade your webserver to a backports version,
> > and the webserver has been compiled against the libs you already have.
>
> thanks! Is this also one of the reasons why not all packages in
> testing are
Dan,
> On the other hand, upgrade your webserver to a backports version,
> and the webserver has been compiled against the libs you already have.
thanks! Is this also one of the reasons why not all packages in
testing are available via backports? I mean I could imagine that there
are packages
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:45:45AM +0200, Martin T wrote:
>
> what are advantages of using Debian "backports"("jessie-backports" in
> sources.list file) over "testing"("testing" in sources.list file)? As
> I understand, "backports" does not have all the packages from
> "testing". On the other
Hi,
what are advantages of using Debian "backports"("jessie-backports" in
sources.list file) over "testing"("testing" in sources.list file)? As
I understand, "backports" does not have all the packages from
"testing". On the other hand, packages in "backports" are specially
recompiled for "stable"
12 matches
Mail list logo