Mark Panen wrote at 2011-09-25 06:31 -0500:
> Some packages i want to install on my Squeeze machine just don't have
> the right dependencies or packages, so i take what i need from
> testing. Am i going to bork my installation?
Perhaps, but probably not (according to my experience). Use packages from
backports instead, if available.
I mix stable/testing/unstable often with very little trouble. But I am
careful about what packages I upgrade, and my system is always either "mostly
stable" or "mostly testing". Generally, stand-alone packages can be upgraded
without any trouble, but core packages should be left alone. The more
reverse dependencies a package has, the more careful you should be about
upgrading it.
09-25-2011, 02:13 PM
Andrew Wood
Am i playing with fire?
Ive had the same problems and unfortunatly Ive never found the ones I need in backports.
For example there isnt even a newer version of Shotwell in backports so Im stuck on 0.6.
Currently having problems with not being able to use a modern version of WebKitGTK because of the age of libsoup & glib.
This is why im keen on the proposed 'Continuously Usable Testing' distro although I think it needs a more "stable " sounding name perhaps something like "Debian Rolling"
Sent from iPhone
On 25 Sep 2011, at 14:56, green <greenfreedom10@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Panen wrote at 2011-09-25 06:31 -0500:
>> Some packages i want to install on my Squeeze machine just don't have
>> the right dependencies or packages, so i take what i need from
>> testing. Am i going to bork my installation?
>
> Perhaps, but probably not (according to my experience). Use packages from
> backports instead, if available.
>
> I mix stable/testing/unstable often with very little trouble. But I am
> careful about what packages I upgrade, and my system is always either "mostly
> stable" or "mostly testing". Generally, stand-alone packages can be upgraded
> without any trouble, but core packages should be left alone. The more
> reverse dependencies a package has, the more careful you should be about
> upgrading it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 82000D1F-1E6D-4D96-8C28-0DFE483660B0@me.com">http://lists.debian.org/82000D1F-1E6D-4D96-8C28-0DFE483660B0@me.com
09-25-2011, 02:23 PM
Miles Fidelman
Am i playing with fire?
green wrote:
Mark Panen wrote at 2011-09-25 06:31 -0500:
Some packages i want to install on my Squeeze machine just don't have
the right dependencies or packages, so i take what i need from
testing. Am i going to bork my installation?
Perhaps, but probably not (according to my experience). Use packages from
backports instead, if available.
I mix stable/testing/unstable often with very little trouble. But I am
careful about what packages I upgrade, and my system is always either "mostly
stable" or "mostly testing". Generally, stand-alone packages can be upgraded
without any trouble, but core packages should be left alone. The more
reverse dependencies a package has, the more careful you should be about
upgrading it.
sort of depends on the packages
for o/s and core packages, I tend to rely on oldstable (i.e., Lenny) - I
try to keep a stable environment
for servers and applications (e.g., mailing list manager, blog engine) -
where currency tends to be important - I generally download and build
the upstream source - it takes a little more work to make sure
dependencies are in place, but I find that the upstream make files are
more reliable than the bleeding edge packaging. At least in my case, a
lot of the packages I use are developed on Debian - so the upstream
source is as good or better than the packaging.
specific example: I run a lot of mailing lists of one machine (actually
a VM):
- hypervisor (Xen) and O/S (Lenny) - basic installs, rely on apt- to
keep stuff current
- LAMP (the AMP part) - rely on apt-
- mail stuff (Postfix, Spamassassin, ClamAV, avavisd) - again, rely on
apt- but... requires some manual wiring together
- perl - rely on apt- for core; rely on cpan to update
- sympa - the mail list manager, built in perl - install from source -
it's makefile invokes cpan to install dependencies (but doesn't always
get things right - sometimes have to invoke cpan manually); then it
builds and runs just fine -- the upstream version is always several revs
ahead of the Debian packages, and I've yet to find a packaged version
that actually installs cleanly
granted, it's a bit harder to manage a system when one goes around the
package manager, but sometimes you can get better results
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In<fnord> practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:31:34 +0200, Mark Panen wrote:
> Some packages i want to install on my Squeeze machine just don't have
> the right dependencies or packages, so i take what i need from testing.
> Am i going to bork my installation?
What packages are they (the ones you wanted to install)? Maybe there is
another way to proceed.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: pan.2011.09.25.14.32.47@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.09.25.14.32.47@gmail.com
09-25-2011, 03:00 PM
Mark Panen
Am i playing with fire?
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:31:34 +0200, Mark Panen wrote:
>
>> Some packages i want to install on my Squeeze machine just don't have
>> the right dependencies or packages, so i take what i need from testing.
>> Am i going to bork my installation?
>
> What packages are they (the ones you wanted to install)? Maybe there is
> another way to proceed.
>
> Greetings,
>
> --
> Camaleón
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.09.25.14.32.47@gmail.com
>
>
I have already installed them, i have made Squeeze as my main desktop
the last 3 days and have forgotten half the stuff i did.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CABWh29n90k8tR+kQHT9QQXsGgt7=+MXLXH0Ou2RuJxtOcfar+ A@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CABWh29n90k8tR+kQHT9QQXsGgt7=+MXLXH0Ou2RuJxtOcfar+ A@mail.gmail.com
09-25-2011, 07:35 PM
green
Am i playing with fire?
Andrew Wood wrote at 2011-09-25 09:13 -0500:
> This is why im keen on the proposed 'Continuously Usable Testing' distro
> although I think it needs a more "stable " sounding name perhaps something
> like "Debian Rolling"
What's in a name? And generally, stable is stable because of its age. You
just can not have software that is both new and stable.
Am i playing with fire?
