On Mon, Jul 1, 2019, 13:51 Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon 01 Jul 2019 at 13:24:48 -0400, Default User wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > Easy question, maybe hard to answer . . . > > > > Is someone has an existing conventional Unstable setup (nothing exotic in > > hardware or software), what if any special actions should be taken > before, > > during, or after the impending release of the new Stable? > > > > (inb4: > > 1 - RTFM > > 2 - RTF release notes) > > The question doesn't really make sense. The situation is that packages > in buster came from unstable. That is, unstable affects and determines > buster, not the other way round. Any use of unstable obliges a user to > keep on top of changes there. > > -- > Brian. >
Well, a recent thread about encrypted file systems got me to thinking. What if a new Stable release introduces a major change to the existing distribution technology or methodology? For example, a new default filesystem is introduced. Or something like systemd infects the distribution or its rate of metastasis accelerates, etc. Or an important package management system or communication protocol is superseded or falls into disuse, or is simply abandoned by its developers or maintainers. I was wondering if an existing Unstable setup could diverge so far from Stable that major surgery would be necessary, or even complete replacement with Stable, followed by conversion to contemporaneous Unstable.
