On Mi, 01 apr 20, 15:49:25, dalios wrote: > On 3/30/20 2:26 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > >> [...] and still retain testing in sources.list (having testing in > > sources.list when running unstable is a good idea anyway). > > Can you be so kind and explain to me how is that a good idea? I am > _definitely not_ as knowledgeable as you are, but that sounds strange > enough to make me wonder what have I missed... > > I have only tried unstable twice and only on secondary machines, just > for experimenting. This question is only for learning purpose. The recommendation is based on the statement of a Debian Release Manager some years ago[1]. Basically it may happen that a particular package is removed from unstable, which will also affect other packages that depend on it. With testing in sources.list the package can be installed from there instead. Because apt[2] by default prefers newer versions of a package, if a package is available in unstable and testing with different versions the unstable version will be preferred. So the only downsides I can think of would be slightly longer download times on 'apt update' and possibly a late alert that a specific package is being removed from Debian (typically packages are removed from testing first, but it may happen the other way around as well). [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00582.html [2] and other package managers like aptitude, etc. Hope this explains, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature