Re: Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?
Jan Ingvoldstad schrieb am Mittwoch, den 01. Februar 2012:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 15:16, Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de> wrote:
>
> >
> > It is not possible to test every consequence of a new/upgraded backport.
> > So incompatibilitys between backports and/or stable componentens may
> > happen.
> >
> > And sometimes they are even known and can't be avoided.
> >
>
> Okay, here is my suggestion.
>
> Today's introduction reads:
>
> «
>
> You are running Debian stable, because you prefer the Debian stable tree.
> It runs great, there is just one problem: the software is a little bit
> outdated compared to other distributions. This is where backports come in.
>
> Backports are recompiled packages from testing (mostly) and unstable (in a
> few cases only, e.g. security updates) in a stable environment so that they
> will run without new libraries (whenever it is possible) on a Debian stable
> distribution. It is recommended to select single backports which fit your
> needs, and not to use all available backports.
>
> »
>
>
> I suggest changing this to something like this:
>
> «
>
> Backports are software from Debian's testing and unstable distributions,
> recompiled and repackaged for the current stable distribution so that they
> will run without new libraries whenever possible, and without upgrading to
> testing or unstable.
>
> Backports cannot be tested as extensively as Debian stable, and backports
> are provided on an as-is basis, with risk of incompatibilities with other
> components in Debian stable. Use with care!
>
> It is therefore recommended to select single backported packages that fit
> your needs, and not use all available backports.
Added.
Thank you very much.
Alex
--
Alexander Wirt, formorer@formorer.de
CC99 2DDD D39E 75B0 B0AA B25C D35B BC99 BC7D 020A
Reply to: