On 2018-07-10 at 10:10, Hans wrote: > Hi Robert, > > thanks for your quick response. So, doi I see this correct and can I > say: There is an automatismn for a package removal, which will be > interrupted, when the maintainer is responding within a period of > time and the reason for the removal was eliminated (i.e. fixed a bug > or uploaded a newer version). Whenever a maintainer does nothing, the > package got to be removed, when its dependencies inmtefere with other > dependencies, but is left, when its dependencies do not harm > anything. Can I say so? > > And did I understand you correctly: Using unstable or stable is > better than to use testing? If I understood this correctly, then the > logical result would be, that testing has to expect more trouble (for > users) than stable or unstable, > > Most users I am supporting are using stable, but some are using > testing. Should I advise them to upgrade tu unstable? *NO*. Unstable should be run only by people who are willing to accept considerable risk of system breakage, and report bugs when things do break, and (if possible) be involved in trying to fix those bugs. It should certainly not be run by anyone without enough technical savvy to support their own systems. If you aren't willing to accept risk at all, run stable. If stable isn't enough, but you aren't willing to accept the full risk that comes with running unstable, run testing - but accept that this involves a risk that packages you previously installed may disappear from the repositories, either temporarily or permanently. If testing isn't enough, and you're willing to accept the full risk that any and/or every part of your system might break (possibly in unfixable ways), then run unstable - but accept that if something breaks as a result of doing so, you get to keep the pieces. If none of those three options is good enough, then you're probably out of luck. For myself, I track stable+testing, dist-upgrade on at least a weekly basis, and deal with occasional breakage when it happens. (I'm really surprised to see someone with an @debian.org address advising people to run unstable for any other reason than helping with developing Debian. Cherry-picking a single package from unstable for new-version reasons may be one thing, but tracking unstable on a production system is dangerous and inadvisable, and I've gotten multiple machines into unsupportable configurations that way. I've also seen it stated repeatedly on debian-devel that people not interested in helping develop / improve Debian should not run sid.) -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature