-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Manuel,
On 08/06/16 17:09, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > > However, it's strange for me to imagine administering systems in different > distributions with the input cloned, or which are not almost 100% in sync in > terms of packages available, etc. > Trust me, its possible. I have a private set of meta packages (common for Squeeze, Wheezy Jessie and Stretch) to keep the hosts in sync. > Some basic keys might work, but as soon as one has to decide between > different upgrade solutions or similar cases, things can get wrong very > quickly. Would be probably easier to use the command line in that case > (update lists && upgrade), and interactive when things get complicated. Of course resolving package conflicts might be difficult and require manual interaction restricted to a few hosts only, esp. for Unstable. cssh does support this approach. Point is, using the new aptitude on Stretch will make this go wrong every time. I would like to avoid this. > But well, I guess that people do these things. > > > Also, for me it's hard to imagine why one would bother with "New" for systems > that one doesn't have a personal interest in monitoring very closely, and > receives new packages continuously like unstable (e.g. main development > system only). > I am not sure if I got this correctly. This is not about "unstable" or "development systems only", but about a new aptitude that might be included with Stretch on release date. Of course Stretch is very volatile today, but this will go away. Regards Harri -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXpwREAAoJEAqeKp5m04HLDLAH/ie77TyM58zUHVTVsug0h+EI KZxtDzlMa1EpmcOVNNbyZS0ONon/aBy82QWgYQ/vfdUkXTPxXyEusL5+6akiqGVT CDc8b4/YjMmhOL0Vtcisvnbrd31by3KjdJInR62o7QaXLrJw7f0v3SMWGQJ8NFw/ InY3WKMUg819RtFj6P6/xqcHokiWpLMRO749sUb6at0HS4/QSesz58Ae6twPdzHA LWaLaGXgnZPt/B6Cj0AC2TUHl6SobEJOg4VIo7Upwy9h29gjbtTyOrZaWCW3Somh we7ZLhNUSBbgF8KTWaEHFrra48rWM/MTLTwK2Q0kJm3VATmXCvjbGgFelKu8N0w= =TaR+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----