On 02/02/2025 01:24, Roger Price wrote:
I find the instructions for synaptic at https://wiki.debian.org/Backports are
incorrect
and misleading. It seems to me now that synaptic is not the correct tool for
managing backported packages, apt on the command line is much preferable.
The page does
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 01/02/2025 02:34, Eddie wrote:
> > In Synaptic go to "Settings" - 'Preferences" - "Distributions"
> > then select "Prefer Versions From" - backports
>
> Do not do it. It is not a supposed w
On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 2:17 AM Max Nikulin wrote:
>
> On 01/02/2025 02:34, Eddie wrote:
> > In Synaptic go to "Settings" - 'Preferences" - "Distributions"
> > then select "Prefer Versions From" - backports
>
> D
On 01/02/2025 02:34, Eddie wrote:
In Synaptic go to "Settings" - 'Preferences" - "Distributions"
then select "Prefer Versions From" - backports
Do not do it. It is not a supposed way to use backports.
<https://backports.debian.org/>
It is therefor
On 1/23/25 00:14, didier gaumet wrote:
Le 22/01/2025 à 23:41, Marco Möller a écrit :
On 1/22/25 23:23, didier gaumet wrote:
Debian provides realtime kernels in its repositories. For an AMD64 PC
and Debian 12 Bookworm (without backports), the last LTS realtime
kernel package is:
linux-image
Le 22/01/2025 à 23:41, Marco Möller a écrit :
On 1/22/25 23:23, didier gaumet wrote:
Debian provides realtime kernels in its repositories. For an AMD64 PC
and Debian 12 Bookworm (without backports), the last LTS realtime
kernel package is:
linux-image-6.1.0-29-rt-amd64
Do I understand
On 1/22/25 23:12, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:07:57PM +0100, Marco Möller wrote:
You mean, linux-image-amd64 in bookworm-backports, which currently
draws in linux-image-6.12.9+bpo-amd64 (= 6.12.9-1~bpo12+1), can be
expected to NOT draw in some 6.13 like 6.13~rc7+1~exp1
On 1/22/25 23:23, didier gaumet wrote:
Debian provides
realtime kernels in its repositories. For an AMD64 PC and Debian 12
Bookworm (without backports), the last LTS realtime kernel package is:
linux-image-6.1.0-29-rt-amd64
Do I understand correctly, that the rt-kernels like the one you
Le 22/01/2025 à 23:23, didier gaumet a écrit :
[...)
DAW usage and I don not think he was not using backports)
[...)
I did not take time to read myself before posting, sorry:
"I do not think he was using backports"
is more correct ;-)
od results.
What seems to be efficient if you work with more than a few
instruments/tracks, is, yes, a realtime kernel
Debian standard (by default) kernel is not realtime, but Debian provides
realtime kernels in its repositories. For an AMD64 PC and Debian 12
Bookworm (without backports), th
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:07:57PM +0100, Marco Möller wrote:
You mean, linux-image-amd64 in bookworm-backports, which currently
draws in linux-image-6.12.9+bpo-amd64 (= 6.12.9-1~bpo12+1), can be
expected to NOT draw in some 6.13 like 6.13~rc7+1~exp1 currently
already having appeared in the
On 1/22/25 22:32, Michael Stone wrote:
I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of how backports work:
they're not "the latest kernel", they're "the latest kernel from debian
testing". You're not going to see a kernel in backports that's not going
now. I will accept this and go for the
repetitive manual way then.
I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of how backports work:
they're not "the latest kernel", they're "the latest kernel from debian
testing". You're not going to see a kernel in b
I usually prefer a Debian "stable" and am therefore on Bookworm,
and thought to keep things as simple as possible and to follow common
recommendations from the Linux audio community, I am about to deviate
from my strict "stable" path and give the kernel 6.12 from backports
>
> I want to install the currently highest version of kernel 6.12 from
> bookworm-backports to my Bookworm. Upon some "apt update && apt upgrade" I
> want this kernel to become upgraded whenever in backports becomes available
> a higher version of kernel 6.12, like having
On 22/01/2025 03:17, Marco Möller wrote:
Could you please share with me, or point me to, a howto or receipt for
applying all upgrades to future kernel 6.12.x versions to appear in
Bookworm Backports when doing "apt update && apt upgrade", but to not
leave the 6.12 (upstream L
; I want to install the currently highest version of kernel 6.12 from
> bookworm-backports to my Bookworm.
The fundamental question is why you want to do this. Is your hardware
not supported by the bookworm kernel? Do you *need* this backported
kernel?
Backports are a set of packages that a
On 1/22/25 00:10, George at Clug wrote:
I apologise, but I do not understand what it is you want to achieve or what it
is that you are asking.
Can you please give more explanation?
I want to install the currently highest version of kernel 6.12 from
bookworm-backports to my Bookworm. Upon
lable in
backports"
What do you think "backports" are ?
Have you already installed any backports?
Why do you not want to install backports?
Are you saying that you only want to use Debian Bookworm packages?
And not any packages that are from new releases (e.g. Trixie or Fo
On 1/21/25 21:39, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 09:17:52PM +0100, Marco Möller wrote:
Hello community!
Could you please share with me, or point me to, a howto or receipt for
applying all upgrades to future kernel 6.12.x versions to appear in Bookworm
Backports when doing &quo
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 09:17:52PM +0100, Marco Möller wrote:
> Hello community!
> Could you please share with me, or point me to, a howto or receipt for
> applying all upgrades to future kernel 6.12.x versions to appear in Bookworm
> Backports when doing "apt update &&
Hello community!
Could you please share with me, or point me to, a howto or receipt for
applying all upgrades to future kernel 6.12.x versions to appear in
Bookworm Backports when doing "apt update && apt upgrade", but to not
leave the 6.12 (upstream LTS) branch and not upgr
On 4/8/24 09:31, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
I've seen that some recent kernel has had trouble so I thought I'd
report some good news
Error
Update
My vboxdrv module has disappeared. I don't have time this side of a 4
week trip to try to sort it. I'll look for help when I got home.I
I've seen that some recent kernel has had trouble so I thought I'd
report some good news
--
All the best
Keith Bainbridge
keithr...@gmail.com
keith.bainbridge.3...@gmail.com
+61 (0)447 667 468
UTC + 10:00
On Mon 20 Nov 2023 at 11:12:03 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2023-11-18 23:43:34 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sat 18 Nov 2023 at 23:33:59 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2023-11-18 09:18:56 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > The "6.1.0-" part comes from the upstream release se
On 2023-11-18 23:43:34 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Sat 18 Nov 2023 at 23:33:59 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2023-11-18 09:18:56 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > The "6.1.0-" part comes from the upstream release series. All the
> > > kernel images containing "6.1.0-" in this section
3 at 13:02:28 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > > In any case, if a package is renamed (which particularly applies to
> > > > > unstable, I don't know about backports), I would expect reportbug
> > > > > to also consider the new name for a newer ver
On Sat 18 Nov 2023 at 23:33:59 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2023-11-18 09:18:56 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > The "6.1.0-" part comes from the upstream release series. All the
> > kernel images containing "6.1.0-" in this section should come from the
> > same upstream series (6.1.x), and
On Sat 18 Nov 2023 at 15:29:51 (+0100), steve wrote:
> Le 18-11-2023, à 09:18:56 -0500, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 12:24:30AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > > On Fri 17 Nov 2023 at 14:07:54 (+), Tixy wrote:
> > > > At time of writing, that depended on package in stable
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
To my surprise, reportbug asks me to use bullseye-backports
(= oldstable-backports) on my bookworm (= stable) machine:
Your version (6.1.55-1) of linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64 appears to be out of date.
The following newer release(s) are available in
On 2023-11-18 09:18:56 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> The "6.1.0-" part comes from the upstream release series. All the
> kernel images containing "6.1.0-" in this section should come from the
> same upstream series (6.1.x), and should have basically the same feature
> set, with no major changes.
if a package is renamed (which particularly applies to
> > > > unstable, I don't know about backports), I would expect reportbug
> > > > to also consider the new name for a newer version of the package.
> > > > In short, its search for newer versions shoul
Thanks Greg for the precise explanation. I would suggest to put it in the
Debian Wiki for futur reference.
Le 18-11-2023, à 09:18:56 -0500, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 12:24:30AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
On Fri 17 Nov 2023 at 14:07:54 (+), Tixy wrote:
> At time of wri
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 12:24:30AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 17 Nov 2023 at 14:07:54 (+), Tixy wrote:
> > At time of writing, that depended on package in stable is called
> > 'linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64' and the version of that package is
> > '6.1.55-1'. This is the kernel installed o
> > On 2023-11-14, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The base number is the same, but I would have thought that
> > > > > > > > > this other
> > > > > > > > &g
nstable, I don't know about backports), I would expect reportbug
> > > to also consider the new name for a newer version of the package.
> > > In short, its search for newer versions should be based on the
> > > source package rather than the binary package.
> >
>
>
> > > > > > > > The base number is the same, but I would have thought that this
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > kernel might have additional patches.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
On 2023-11-16 14:04:29 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 16 Nov 2023 at 13:02:28 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > In any case, if a package is renamed (which particularly applies to
> > unstable, I don't know about backports), I would expect reportbug
> > to also c
ut I would have thought that this
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > kernel might have additional patches.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's why I suggested ignoring the message.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
On 2023-11-15 13:54:51 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 15 Nov 2023 at 20:01:20 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2023-11-15 18:06:45 +, Tixy wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 18:15 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
[...]
> > > > But the bookworm-backports ke
tches.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's why I suggested ignoring the message.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then why does reportbug mention the bullseye-backports kernel?
> > > > >
> > > > > Becau
> > > > >
> > > > > The base number is the same, but I would have thought that this other
> > > > > kernel might have additional patches.
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's why I suggested ignoring the message.
> > &g
ave thought that this other
> > > > kernel might have additional patches.
> > > >
> > > > > That's why I suggested ignoring the message.
> > > >
> > > > Then why does reportbug mention the bullseye-backports kernel?
> > >
l patches.
> > >
> > > > That's why I suggested ignoring the message.
> > >
> > > Then why does reportbug mention the bullseye-backports kernel?
> >
> > Because it kind of looks newer if you're a not very bright software
> > cons
.
> >
> > Then why does reportbug mention the bullseye-backports kernel?
>
> Because it kind of looks newer if you're a not very bright software
> construct, he opined.
But the bookworm-backports kernel is even newer.
So why not this one?
--
Vincent Lefèvre - Web:
On 2023-11-15 08:50:50 +0100, didier gaumet wrote:
> I don't know why particularly a Bullseye-backports kernel is promoted here
> in a mixed stable/unstable context but perhaps (I have not tested it) you
> could set check-available to 0 in /etc/reportbug.conf (1) to avoid to be
>
p;text=on&s=oldstable,stable,testing,unstable,experimental&a=source,all,x86_64'
>
> The same request without s=... returns versions for all dists and it is
> valid way to call get_newqueue_available. I agree that oldstable-backports
> is confusing, but perhaps it is better to
On 2023-11-14, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> The base number is the same, but I would have thought that this other
> kernel might have additional patches.
>
>> That's why I suggested ignoring the message.
>
> Then why does reportbug mention the bullseye-backports kernel
Le 14/11/2023 à 23:01, Vincent Lefevre a écrit :
[...]
Then why does reportbug mention the bullseye-backports kernel?
[...]
Hello,
I don't know why particularly a Bullseye-backports kernel is promoted
here in a mixed stable/unstable context but perhaps (I have not tested
it) you coul
without s=... returns versions for all dists and it is
valid way to call get_newqueue_available. I agree that
oldstable-backports is confusing, but perhaps it is better to leave
decision to common sense of users. Too strict filtering might have
negative effect in corner cases.
Yes, because
On 2023-11-14 16:34:18 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:21:13PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2023-11-14 23:54:31 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote:
> > > On 14/11/2023 19:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > To my surprise, reportbug ask
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:21:13PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2023-11-14 23:54:31 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote:
> > On 14/11/2023 19:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > To my surprise, reportbug asks me to use bullseye-backports
> > > (= oldstable-backports) on my
On 2023-11-14 23:54:31 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 14/11/2023 19:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > To my surprise, reportbug asks me to use bullseye-backports
> > (= oldstable-backports) on my bookworm (= stable) machine:
>
> Might it happen that you have bullseye-backport
On 14/11/2023 19:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
To my surprise, reportbug asks me to use bullseye-backports
(= oldstable-backports) on my bookworm (= stable) machine:
Might it happen that you have bullseye-backports in apt sources.list?
apt policy
apt policy linux-image-amd64
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 01:00:47PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> To my surprise, reportbug asks me to use bullseye-backports
> (= oldstable-backports) on my bookworm (= stable) machine:
>
> Your version (6.1.55-1) of linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64 appears to be out of
> date.
> T
To my surprise, reportbug asks me to use bullseye-backports
(= oldstable-backports) on my bookworm (= stable) machine:
Your version (6.1.55-1) of linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64 appears to be out of date.
The following newer release(s) are available in the Debian archive:
bullseye-backports
Hi,
just FYI:
I hit
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1019423
with Debian bookworm-backports
rd@h370:~/.config/libreoffice/4/user$ apt-cache policy libreoffice
libreoffice:
Installiert: 4:7.5.6-1~bpo12+1
Installationskandidat: 4:7.5.6-1~bpo12+1
Versionstabelle
On 2023-06-20 19:05 +0500, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I've successfully upgraded to Bookworm recently and trying to build a
> backport package.
> But the usual "$ debchange --bpo" still wants to build for
> "bullseye-backports" and modifi
Hello.
I've successfully upgraded to Bookworm recently and trying to build a
backport package.
But the usual "$ debchange --bpo" still wants to build for
"bullseye-backports" and modifies "debian/changelog" by adding
"~bpo11+1" and "bullse
Hi all,
After using the bullseye-backports kernel, my vps ran out of memory
after a period of time.
Normally the solution to these missing fir
Hi All,
I just installed the latest kernel in the Debian Bullseye backports and I'm
getting these warnings:
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/skl_guc_62.0.0.bin for
module i915
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/bxt_guc_62.0.0.bin for
module i915
W: Possible mi
On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 09:18:24 -0500
Dave Johnson wrote:
> I'm trying to reproduce an issue and need a non-latest backports deb
> file to test with.
>
> Specifically, pool/main/g/gpsd/python3-gps_3.20-12~bpo10+1_arm64.deb
What are you trying to do?
3.20 is two years old. That i
On 2021-12-29 at 09:46, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 09:18:24AM -0500, Dave Johnson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to reproduce an issue and need a non-latest backports
>> deb file to test with.
>>
>> Specifically,
>&g
On Wed, 2021-12-29 at 09:18 -0500, Dave Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to reproduce an issue and need a non-latest backports deb
> file to test with.
>
> Specifically, pool/main/g/gpsd/python3-gps_3.20-12~bpo10+1_arm64.deb
>
> However that has been deleted fr
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 09:18:24AM -0500, Dave Johnson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to reproduce an issue and need a non-latest backports deb
> file to test with.
>
> Specifically, pool/main/g/gpsd/python3-gps_3.20-12~bpo10+1_arm64.deb
>
> However that has bee
Hi,
I'm trying to reproduce an issue and need a non-latest backports deb
file to test with.
Specifically, pool/main/g/gpsd/python3-gps_3.20-12~bpo10+1_arm64.deb
However that has been deleted from the mirrors as it has been replaced
with pool/main/g/gpsd/python3-gps_3.22-4~bpo10+1_arm6
; >
> > On 04/12/2021 10:45, Nicholas Guriev wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > On ??, 2021-12-03 at 19:44 +, piorunz wrote:
> > > > Testing has got 3.1.1. I hope bullseye-backports can update it? CC to
> > > > maintainer, Ni
day, but now I am
> back to using telegram desktop app. Great work:)
>
> On 04/12/2021 10:45, Nicholas Guriev wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > On Пт, 2021-12-03 at 19:44 +, piorunz wrote:
> > > Testing has got 3.1.1. I hope bullseye-backports can update it? CC to
holas Guriev wrote:
Hello!
On Пт, 2021-12-03 at 19:44 +, piorunz wrote:
Testing has got 3.1.1. I hope bullseye-backports can update it? CC to
maintainer, Nicholas Guriev! Thanks in advance.
I have uploaded this version to Backports. It is already available on
mirrors and should work okay.
Hello!
On Пт, 2021-12-03 at 19:44 +, piorunz wrote:
> Testing has got 3.1.1. I hope bullseye-backports can update it? CC to
> maintainer, Nicholas Guriev! Thanks in advance.
I have uploaded this version to Backports. It is already available on
mirrors and should work okay.
Hi all,
I am using telegram-desktop 2.9.2 from bullseye-backports, original
bullseye version is 2.6.1, as shown:
$ apt-cache policy telegram-desktop
telegram-desktop:
Installed: 2.9.2+ds-1~bpo11+1
Candidate: 2.9.2+ds-1~bpo11+1
Version table:
*** 2.9.2+ds-1~bpo11+1 100
100 http
On 03.12.2021 20:26, daggs wrote:
Greetings Alexander,
thank you for the explenation, is there a place where I can see when
libvirt might arrive to bullseye-backports?
https://backports.debian.org/
You will find there the list of all packages uploaded to
bullseye-backports¹ and the list of
Greetings Alexander,
thank you for the explenation, is there a place where I can see when libvirt might arrive to bullseye-backports?
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2021 at 4:42 PM
From: "Alexander V. Makartsev"
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: qemu from backports and li
On 03.12.2021 18:14, daggs wrote:
Greetings,
I'm trying to install qemu from bullseye-backports on a system with libvirt
from bullseye, when inspecting the output I notice this:
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libvirt-daemon libvirt-daemon-system
why is that? is there a way to
Greetings,
I'm trying to install qemu from bullseye-backports on a system with libvirt
from bullseye, when inspecting the output I notice this:
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libvirt-daemon libvirt-daemon-system
why is that? is there a way to make both pkgs coexist?
Thanks,
Dagg
Marco Möller wrote:
> Hello,
> how are the chances that redmine and required dependencies are becoming soon
> available in stable Debian (bullseye-backports), so that I could install it
> with the apt command without hassle?
> Would someone know if there is reasonable hope to see
Hello,
how are the chances that redmine and required dependencies are becoming
soon available in stable Debian (bullseye-backports), so that I could
install it with the apt command without hassle?
Would someone know if there is reasonable hope to see this to happen, or
is packaging of redmine
take the latest most resonable version of it.
Depends very much on your definition of "reasonable".
> If there's a security update, I want that version first.
Ok.
> Normally if I install something, it should come from stable. However,
> if there's a backport of tha
ixed environment in a
> > > VM, chroot, or other virtual environment. When it gets into an unusable
> > > state (it very likely will at some point, especially as testing further
> > > diverges from stable), you can wipe it clean and start over.
> > So, here is
will at some point, especially as testing further
diverges from stable), you can wipe it clean and start over.
So, here is the way I get it: use Debian stable + backports as the
system basis.
Stability is really important for me.
I am more conservative and I Don't use Backports*. S
lly as testing further
> diverges from stable), you can wipe it clean and start over.
So, here is the way I get it: use Debian stable + backports as the
system basis. For cutting edge tests, use a virtual machine in which,
well, any adventurous experiment needed can be done, as it can b
In other word, this is really not recommended, am I right?
>
> Well, the thing is I do care of long-term usability of the machine …
>
> Best regards.
>
Definitely, mixing stable + (anothing other than official backports)
risks causing significant damage to the sys
Hello everybody out there!
On 2021/08/29 at 01:25am, Dan Ritter wrote:
> You can do this. If I didn't care much about the long-term
> usability of the machine, I would do this.
In other word, this is really not recommended, am I right?
Well, the thing is I do care of long-term
Yoann LE BARS wrote:
>
> Usually, I am using Debian stable with backports, and I am quite happy
> with it. However, it turns out I will probably have to test some early
> versions of some software and libraries that are not in backports, such
> as Ardour and SDL2.
>
&g
Hello everybody out there!
First, I want to thank and congratulate Debian developers for Debian
11. I am about to upgrade to this version.
Usually, I am using Debian stable with backports, and I am quite happy
with it. However, it turns out I will probably have to test some
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 08:26:07PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 19 Aug 2021 at 16:16:01 +, Andy Smith wrote:
> > So I was wondering what is the typical timescale for binary packages
> > from the kernel source upload to appear in buster-backports?
>
> I do not thi
On Thu 19 Aug 2021 at 16:16:01 +, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I notice that yesterday there's been an acceptance email for source
> package linux-signed-amd64 version 5.10.46+4~bpo10+1 in
> buster-backports:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-ke
Hi,
I notice that yesterday there's been an acceptance email for source
package linux-signed-amd64 version 5.10.46+4~bpo10+1 in
buster-backports:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2021/08/msg00139.html
Previously there had also been one for version 5.10.46+3~bpo10+1.
Yet as of
On Tue 17 Aug 2021 at 16:19:48 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> On Tue 17 Aug 2021 at 10:43:29 -0400, Michael Grant wrote:
> > I included Experimental which probably was a mistake and I probably
> > meant Unstable. (I can see Greg rolling his eyes...)
> >
> > Here's a blog post I was looking at: https://
le, or I need some feature from a more recent
> version of something which is why backports is important to me.
I wonder what you mean by "stable" system? In a Debian context it
means "unchanging". You cannot have a stable system with a testing
or unstable line in source
> some people have different goals than i.
You're correct. Though I do have a primary goal to have a stable
system, I sometimes (albeit it's rare) I need to install package
that's not in stable, or I need some feature from a more recent
version of something which is why back
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 03:07:06PM -0400, songbird wrote:
>> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> ...
>> >> deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ experimental main contrib non-free
>> >> deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ experimental main contrib non-free
>> >
>> > And this is jus
and I quote, "Moving from Testing
to Stable + Backports".
If you mix binary repositories, then you are running whichever release
has the highest-numbered packages out of your set of binary repositories.
This means: if you mix binary repositories for stable and testing, you
are running testi
1 - 100 of 876 matches
Mail list logo
