On Monday 02 July 2012 16:09:03 Robert Holtzm wrote: > On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 12:48:36PM -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote: > > On Monday 02 July 2012 03:46:30 Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > > Remember that you are enabling Backports with your own risk in case > > > you decide to enable them. > > > > I second that. Especially when trying to install newer kernels from > > backports. Recently I had problems when 3.2. kernel upgrade from > > backports lead to deinstalling initramfs-tools. DON'T! = DON'T deinstall initramfs-tools > > Not sure I can agree with that, I've installed the 3.2 kernel from > backports on two machines with no problems at all. Sure, that depends on what you had installed from backports before. You might have a smooth passage but you can also end up in the Sargasso Sea. And the more often you install system relevant packages from backports the greater becomes the possiblity to end up in a tangle.
Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough. I installed kernels from backports before. The point was that the danger to enter onto a bumpy road without road signs is far greater when you install system relevant packages from backports as when you stick to the official release. You always need to evalutate how much impact the changes have which you are about to make. "Yes we can!" requires "Trust me. I know what I'm doing." It also seems that you can expect far more help if you stick to Stable, Testing or even Sid than having a mix of Stable and backports. As I said - just my 2 cents. Eike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201207021954.31183.zp6...@gmx.net
