Trackin' stable vs. releases

[Nick Moffitt]

begin  Alan DuBoff  quotation:
> > But the question is, will you stay on _woody_?  Presumably, your
> > sources.list currently says "stable"
> 
> No, actually right now it says woody, and it says that purposely.
> The reason is that it would normally be stable, but since I've been
> on unstable and that the names are only symlinks pointing to the
> actual branch, I don't want to continue on with unstable when woody
> is released. As my system(s) is now, it's on woody, and will
> continue to be on woody and when woody is moved to point to stable,
> I will then, at that point change it to stable.

	Why not just put both lines in your sources.list?  One for
woody and one for stable.  Your woody will trump the stable (potato,
now) until woody becomes stable, at which point they will have the
same packages.  Then once woody is shelved and sid becomes stable,
your stable line will trump your woody line.

	Apt just looks for the most recent possible version of any
available packages (with some fudging for version synchronization).

> > One wonders why you aren't on testing?
> 
> The biggest reason I don't like testing is that it presents packages
> that are linked with different versions of common libs, such as
> gtk++ or glibc and I would prefer that all of my software is
> compiled against a given version when possible. For a given release
> it seems this scenario is less likely to occur.

	But if you run woody, then you *are* on testing.  Sid is
unstable right now.  Has been for a year at least I'm sure.

-- 
INFORMATION GLADLY GIVEN BUT SAFETY REQUIRES AVOIDING UNNECESSARY CONVERSATION
end 
	01234567 <- The amazing* indent-o-meter! 
        ^	    (*: Indent-o-meter may not actually amaze.)