In <[email protected]>, Osamu Aoki wrote: >Right >now, stable and testing have too much gap usually to be useful.
That's not true. I mix stable/backports/testing/unstable/experimental.
Roughly 78% of my systems is packages from stable with the remainder mostly
from testing.
Packages installed: 1688
Version from stable/security/volatile: 1318
Version from backports: 34
Version from testing/security: 239
Version from unstable: 94
Version from experimental: 0
Local packages: 3
nvidia-kernel-2.6.32-trunk-amd6 - NVIDIA binary kernel module for Linux
2.6.
pq - Progress Quest is a "fire and forget"
comp
w64codecs - win64 binary codecs
Aptitude requires more use of the interactive resolver than in a pure system,
but other than that (which I am very comfortable with), I actually am
encountering fewer bugs than when I used stable+backports.
This is also specific to my package selection. Users of different bits of
software may find that much more of testing/unstable needs to be pulled in.
Osamu is absolutely correct that this is an advanced setup. It requires an
attentive and knowledgeable system administrator, and has only minimal support
form the DDs themselves. (They provide you plenty of rope with which you can
hang yourself.)
>(experimental's preference is set to 1 with reason.)
Backports is set to 1 as well. :P
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
[email protected] ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
