On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 03:49:08AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> why I'd never use it. So I'd be for one of these two:
> -removing the public link to 'stable'
> -putting a strong warning in the Debian reference about the hazards of
> using it.
> So if someone uses 'stable', do tell. And if so, would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:18:37AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 21:44 -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
> > Gentlefolk:
> >
> >The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
> > vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to off
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:12:48PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:06:01PM -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
> >
> >I'm pointing out that the `stable' distro becomes
> > massively unstable periodically. Admitted, that period is
> > on the order of multiple years, but it _is
Max Hyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I'm pointing out that the `stable' distro becomes
> massively unstable periodically. Admitted, that period is
> on the order of multiple years, but it _is_ being shortened.
> Additionally, the people least likely to be able to handle a
> badly- or non-wor
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:06:01PM -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
>
>I'm pointing out that the `stable' distro becomes
> massively unstable periodically. Admitted, that period is
> on the order of multiple years, but it _is_ being shortened.
> Additionally, the people least likely to be able to handl
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:18:37AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > You propose to eliminate "stable" as a release. To keep
> > people from hurting themselves. Especially unwitting
> > "auto-updating" ID10Ts. Ok, let me get this
> > straight... How is this a good thing?
Paul Condon opined:
> Greg,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Sneep wrote:
[snip]
>> just a guess, but maybe so that no matter when you install, that
>> install disk will get you moving into stable. so you could use a
>> really old installer and automatically move right up to stable with
>> the next dist-upgr
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:44:10PM -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
>The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
> vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to offer
> `stable' as an entry in sources.list? Its drawback seems to
> be:
>
> o Every so often `stable' whacks you with about
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:18:37AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 21:44 -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
> > Gentlefolk:
> >
> >The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
> > vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to offer
> > `stable' as an entry in sources.list? I
Max Hyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>So, my modest suggestion is that `stable' as a name
> should be eradicated. Roughly no downside, only closer
> adherence to the principle of least astonishment.
If you remove 'stable', then you kind of have to remove 'testing' too.
Otherwise, people who
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 21:44 -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
> Gentlefolk:
>
>The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
> vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to offer
> `stable' as an entry in sources.list? Its drawback seems to
> be:
>
> o Every so often `stable' whacks you w
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:44:10PM -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
>Gentlefolk:
>
>The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
> vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to offer
> `stable' as an entry in sources.list? Its drawback seems to
> be:
>
> o Every so often `stable' wh
Gentlefolk:
The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to offer
`stable' as an entry in sources.list? Its drawback seems to
be:
o Every so often `stable' whacks you with about
seventeen million updates, with the chance that
On Thu, 3 May 2007 11:24:56 -0400
"Jan Sneep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andrew Sackville-West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: May 3, 2007 10:44 AM
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> &
On 5/3/07, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.03.1434 +0200]:
> > Exactly my opinion too, i was more interested in hearing why I would
> > wan't stable instead of the hardcoded name. I just can't think of any
> > r
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.03.1434 +0200]:
> > Exactly my opinion too, i was more interested in hearing why I would
> > wan't stable instead of the hardcoded name. I just can't think of any
> > reason to do that and practically have really use f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Sneep wrote:
[snip]
>
> I just check my sources.list file and interestingly the default when doing a
> clean NetInst is to point to the Etch folders on the miror site, not
> "stable".
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Sackville-West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: May 3, 2007 11:54 AM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Dangers of "stable" in sources.list
>
>
> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 11:24:56AM -0400, Jan Sneep
"Martin Marcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you generally use stable in your sources.list or do you actually
> use sarge/etch/whatever.
I usually use the code names, mostly because lately when I have
installed a new system, the testing distro had gotten far enought hat I
feel comfortable ru
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 11:24:56AM -0400, Jan Sneep wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andrew Sackville-West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: May 3, 2007 10:44 AM
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > Subject: Re: Dangers of "stable
On Thu, 3 May 2007 11:24:56 -0400
"Jan Sneep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had a NetInstall CD of Sarge that I made in January and when I did
> the update last week I lost everything. I found I couldn't use that
> CD it get Etch installed. It would crap-out because it was trying to
> replace the
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Sackville-West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: May 3, 2007 10:44 AM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Dangers of "stable" in sources.list
>
> mildly humorous to think someone could be *surprised* by a de
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:49:24AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Martin Marcher wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On 5/3/07, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>[2007.05.03.1217 +0200]:
> >>> So what are the hints wether to use stable the actual na
also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.03.1434 +0200]:
> Exactly my opinion too, i was more interested in hearing why I would
> wan't stable instead of the hardcoded name. I just can't think of any
> reason to do that and practically have really use for it (except for
> the testing
Martin Marcher wrote:
Hi,
On 5/3/07, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[2007.05.03.1217 +0200]:
> So what are the hints wether to use stable the actual name or not?
From my book:
Exactly my opinion too, i was more interested in he
Hi,
On 5/3/07, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.03.1217 +0200]:
> So what are the hints wether to use stable the actual name or not?
From my book:
Exactly my opinion too, i was more interested in hearing why I would
wan't
also sprach Martin Marcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.03.1217 +0200]:
> So what are the hints wether to use stable the actual name or not?
From my book:
… and the \release{stable} and \release{testing} symlinks changed
to point to the next release generation. For this reason, it is
advisa
Hello,
a general question because it seems to have hit quite a few people:
Do you generally use stable in your sources.list or do you actually
use sarge/etch/whatever.
I think if you go the testing way it is nice to have testing in the
sources list because you will have testing at all times eve
28 matches
Mail list logo
