On 2021-09-03 at 10:17, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 04:11:49PM +0200, Richard Forst wrote:
If you change all instances of bullseye -> testing, then you are not
mixing. Go ahead with that, modulo the standard caveats associated
with running testing. The problem would come if you tried to include
both bullseye *and* testing sources in your sources.list. Then you
might create very difficult to resolve problems.
Are you sure about that last part?
I have been running with (e.g.)
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stable main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib
for over a decade, and while there have been some problems, I think
they've been basically the same ones I'd have seen from running testing
alone; none of them have seemed terribly difficult to resolve, either.
(At least not by my standards, although I'll admit that I may not be the
best or most representative example.)
I don't particularly consider this mixing releases; it's more tracking
testing, while still keeping available any packages which were in stable
but have been removed from testing.
IMO, if you're going to track testing at all on a production computer
(as opposed to, well, for the purpose of actually *testing the upcoming
release*), it only makes sense to also include stable; there's too much
chance of an important package being (temporarily or permanently)
unavailable, otherwise.