FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-02-2012, 12:22 AM
Sven Hartge
 
Default Backports on Squeeze

Mark Panen <mark.panen@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05 system?

Sure, why not.

Just adding the backpors.debian.org lines to your sources.list will do
nothing to your system.

You have to manually install a package from the backports repository to
add it to your system by using either "-t squeeze-backports" or
"packagename/squeeze-backports" with apt-get or aptitude.

Grüße,
Sven.

--
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 38ttedggodv8@mids.svenhartge.de">http://lists.debian.org/38ttedggodv8@mids.svenhartge.de
 
Old 07-02-2012, 03:46 AM
Chris Bannister
 
Default Backports on Squeeze

On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 02:15:42AM +0200, Mark Panen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05 system?

I think there is an issue regarding security updates. Also I think you
need appropriate pinning, maybe wrong though.

Also remember to disable backports before updating to wheezy.
Release notes will probably mention this.

If you are running a desktop system, you are probably better off running
wheezy/testing anyway.

--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


--
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/20120702034640.GC17662@tal
 
Old 07-02-2012, 05:10 AM
Andrei POPESCU
 
Default Backports on Squeeze

On Lu, 02 iul 12, 15:46:40, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 02:15:42AM +0200, Mark Panen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05 system?
>
> I think there is an issue regarding security updates. Also I think you
> need appropriate pinning, maybe wrong though.

Would you care to elaborate on this? The default pinning (priority 100)
will make sure you do get updates, but don't install new backports
unless specifically requested.

> Also remember to disable backports before updating to wheezy.
> Release notes will probably mention this.

Shouldn't be necessary, the backports versioning is specifically
designed so that the version in testing is higher (the magic of ~)

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 07-02-2012, 07:46 AM
Mika Suomalainen
 
Default Backports on Squeeze

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

On 02.07.2012 03:15, Mark Panen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05
> system?

I have them enabled on stable Squeeze system and I know some other
people too and we haven't experienced any problems.

By default when you add the backports sources.list line, nothing is
installed from it automatically unless you run "aptitude install -t
squeeze-backports <package>".
We have also set backports to priority 500 so everything is installed
from them automatically if it contains newer packages than Squeeze
main repositories. Note that some people say that this is more
dangerous than running Debian Unstable (currently Wheezy) and you are
doing this with your own risk.

Our sources.list lines:

```
deb http://http.debian.net/debian-backports squeeze-backports main
contrib non-free
deb-src http://http.debian.net/debian-backports squeeze-backports main
contrib non-free
```

Our /etc/apt/preferences.d/backports:

```
Package: *
Pin: release a=squeeze-backports
Pin-Priority: 500
```

Remember that you are enabling Backports with your own risk in case
you decide to enable them.

- --
[Mika Suomalainen](https://mkaysi.github.com/) ||

NOTICE! I am on mobile broadband with very limited time, so I cannot
read emails very much.
The best time to contact me is probably weekends when I have better
connectivity with good luck.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Homepage: http://mkaysi.github.com/
Comment: gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys 82A46728
Comment: Public key: http://mkaysi.github.com/PGP/key.txt
Comment: Fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728
Comment: Why do I (clear)sign emails? http://git.io/6FLzWg
Comment: Please send plaintext instead of HTML. http://git.io/TAc0cg
Comment: Please don't toppost. http://git.io/7-VB3g
Comment: Charset of this message should be UTF-8.
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP8VHSAAoJEE21PP6CpGcog30P/ApyH9hluO3oOywfE2rSHi4Y
a7U6t4ePuDry6Tk2EfIi/IQ8xRctc1yjBrZid7iXjSscIAL+pPl1sP7zGE006ban
5iynKP+OhuGPAlz5NXShifSelCIcLefSQmCQIJ2Fv0YzisZxTg MO3Bes7aeKFJK+
0njfrj0sga5NqT/Y6lcAsjar0zJsUVshfXAHDhIu9VlB0H8tMWRXmpCL3/q7nSTd
8iQONbusupPj2tkFUmg+K3BGM0mkBPYXjUokqlJf9MtPSZ7JXK xP/SsPpeHkzbiA
P4gf5U1mGCDoNo+iXaQB4fyO5/gOn6Q8+93a0Gyq5u9qLwewKb/5q0B743iIUF1N
NSoLTFM0w3d3gi0BR4JNdxqIUnlFj2RRgO/BvslxTH1Rm8jr1kLC26bn7yIpXdXP
4LTNCeAbNwbAYxkvrctcB7YmUz9Rz75bN0WV4cXM6xMwARyN8x KcvTlVZEDH+xGa
YxAyvDo+q6eBPVR9zIyor72rdgEWXbIB+Mu5B8gpYTrqJd/F3x9HOVW+t4ay3JmZ
O1Tuktdquh/w4oBevEkw6Ba+sbTa3tq7HoBihkRO5du+ZFh8yNrKwq7yeYxzk Z8L
ZVcf+kcmaXQRvJrAG1ZY4EkIc1T73FHaWlIxSPxdhj3HNiZVLK 8aW9sNLKG1UUm0
HcXiu4eZX+AEaupWQ7ZH
=+fLV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4FF151D6.6060007@hotmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4FF151D6.6060007@hotmail.com
 
Old 07-02-2012, 07:53 AM
Mika Suomalainen
 
Default Backports on Squeeze

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02.07.2012 10:47, debian-user@lists.debian.org wrote:
> __________________________________ Type your response ABOVE THIS
> LINE to reply
>
>
> Re: Backports on Squeeze
>
> *1QA4xxx2a* | JUL 02, 2012 | 07:47AM UTC Thank you for
> submitting your request. We have received your request and are
> working on responding to you as soon as possible. If you have any
> additional information to add to this case, please reply to this
> email.
>
> Thanks in advance for your patience and support. This message was
> sent to mark.panen@gmail.com in reference to Case #90370.
>
> [[d6a0244014c0926f81afcb1f09c37a6c1ef4bd56-1778919]]

Joe, I added filter to automatically put you to spam automatically,
how do you still appear in my inbox? ..

- --
[Mika Suomalainen](https://mkaysi.github.com/) ||

NOTICE! I am on mobile broadband with very limited time, so I cannot
read emails very much.
The best time to contact me is probably weekends when I have better
connectivity with good luck.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Homepage: http://mkaysi.github.com/
Comment: gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys 82A46728
Comment: Public key: http://mkaysi.github.com/PGP/key.txt
Comment: Fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728
Comment: Why do I (clear)sign emails? http://git.io/6FLzWg
Comment: Please send plaintext instead of HTML. http://git.io/TAc0cg
Comment: Please don't toppost. http://git.io/7-VB3g
Comment: Charset of this message should be UTF-8.
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP8VOJAAoJEE21PP6CpGcopRAP/2tEo+1ncabD/hTO9Qykxa2D
8G4FpkrXQZJawj7kRNjQo00eqNGliCKFHnaTrofCvbRihgVPh7 0GXz55CGKSU7Lo
gSLH/pM64me/KTx2ETwHyoPgmN2zLAlYSVieWrG4mMjJRPTivpKTjmz79Kt3qD v7
UAPyrnmpEVtMg4hAzu97jB9m5QtfVgam36O1LFZVTZ90YTBZc5 pqcIg5M3RQoJP3
o4Yfjmr5IaWtFPji+VNGn1VyFJIvTKEIiDU+Uw7k+L23rj2w8n 3C2ep5cnXGMNK/
IC37QRxp9n4pgUrBOqlotp1Rw/Z8SOb1nlrWmN+JFo8SjpI7yQq6XVHNMqsuNmdK
KJdCyOJbDgs6bptrHuXLvoHtExKSTo22jHQILT/mUvUP2/HCErWRi1T54vnkkSJs
ha+NO5aWPGQ3OREJMHBvWlkvp0Bj04x5Zf2Pfpek7VtSM9NVws ZMr+xnGIqoPU0o
sF2B5Piun0mCVek09KGTlfnl7Z4QHPM8Zv+ugdtBhOZZwpDyBk Q+U6GnBN0thM6A
WeIr3TPFxOKDy9hANCV65I1opGzfo7ds2NTLyXd2qYJDkWDsak j6z3THnG/Keb2l
iVpr7A1auGwhkTxDPy26OWTD0zJF9RSs+G0Vx0szLGJcPglJFo COIbSMn+YzGWbP
Pj278IpCq8eCmKGsf4Li
=Etag
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4FF1538C.2030308@hotmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4FF1538C.2030308@hotmail.com
 
Old 07-02-2012, 11:15 AM
Chris Bannister
 
Default Backports on Squeeze

On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 08:10:07AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 02 iul 12, 15:46:40, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > I think there is an issue regarding security updates. Also I think you
> > need appropriate pinning, maybe wrong though.
>
> Would you care to elaborate on this? The default pinning (priority 100)
> will make sure you do get updates, but don't install new backports
> unless specifically requested.

So you need to keep physically checking (maybe apt-cache policy) when a
new backport is available?

Ahh, OK I see debian-backports-changes@lists.debian.org, but seems
fairly high volume.

I have vague memories of when I was running iceweasel in Lenny from
backports I had to mess around with the -t switch for its dependencies
(xulrunner, and a libmoz library) because I didn't pin them but I had
iceweasel pinned. I followed the instructions from the backports
repository. But I see, now that backports is officially under the Debian
umbrella, that the instructions are different.

It was a while ago, and things change.

That is why I added "maybe wrong though." So the OP could double-check
for himself.

> > Also remember to disable backports before updating to wheezy.
> > Release notes will probably mention this.
>
> Shouldn't be necessary, the backports versioning is specifically
> designed so that the version in testing is higher (the magic of ~)

http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#userbackports
But now that backports are official, that will no longer be valid?

--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


--
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/20120702111533.GD18755@tal
 
Old 07-02-2012, 11:25 AM
Chris Bannister
 
Default Backports on Squeeze

On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 11:15:33PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 08:10:07AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > Shouldn't be necessary, the backports versioning is specifically
> > designed so that the version in testing is higher (the magic of ~)
>
> http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#userbackports
> But now that backports are official, that will no longer be valid?

Arrrgh!! I see that refers to "userbackports" -- caught me out there

--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


--
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/20120702112558.GA19239@tal
 
Old 07-02-2012, 02:48 PM
Camaleón
 
Default Backports on Squeeze

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:15:42 +0200, Mark Panen wrote:

> Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05 system?

I'd say now is even safer than before because the backported packages are
integrated within the official repositories which should lead to less
packages/libraries collisions.

Just use it with caution and consider a correct pinning if you are
planing of making an intensive use of them.

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/jsscc5$4gd$7@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 07-02-2012, 04:48 PM
Eike Lantzsch
 
Default Backports on Squeeze

On Monday 02 July 2012 03:46:30 Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02.07.2012 03:15, Mark Panen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05
> > system?
>
> I have them enabled on stable Squeeze system and I know some other
> people too and we haven't experienced any problems.
>
> By default when you add the backports sources.list line, nothing is
> installed from it automatically unless you run "aptitude install -t
> squeeze-backports <package>".
> We have also set backports to priority 500 so everything is installed
> from them automatically if it contains newer packages than Squeeze
> main repositories. Note that some people say that this is more
> dangerous than running Debian Unstable (currently Wheezy) and you are
> doing this with your own risk.
>
> Our sources.list lines:
>
> ```
> deb http://http.debian.net/debian-backports squeeze-backports main
> contrib non-free
> deb-src http://http.debian.net/debian-backports squeeze-backports main
> contrib non-free
> ```
>
> Our /etc/apt/preferences.d/backports:
>
> ```
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=squeeze-backports
> Pin-Priority: 500
> ```
>
> Remember that you are enabling Backports with your own risk in case
> you decide to enable them.

I second that. Especially when trying to install newer kernels from backports.
Recently I had problems when 3.2. kernel upgrade from backports lead to
deinstalling initramfs-tools. DON'T!
Trying to upgrade the underlying libraries rapidly led me into dependency-
hell.
I decided to stay with 2.6.38 kernel from backports.
[pidgin french]
Vive la sauvegard du système d'exploitation!
[/pidgin french]

Backports is OK IMHO as long as you limit yourself to applications and if you
know how to fall back to stable versions if something goes wrong but leave the
main system alone unless you really want to learn to be an expert and to know
the Debian package system intimately.
There are workable upgrade paths for one stable release to the other, even
upgrading stable to testing is usually quite painless but backports can rarely
provide such convenience.

My 2 cents worth
Cheers
Eike

--
Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE
Casilla de Correo 1519
1209 Asuncion / Paraguay
Cell-Phone: +595-971-696909

City people: To see these men in the daylight hours down town
one would think they cared more for a minute than for their
eternal happyness. (Will Lillibridge)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201207021248.36541.zp6cge@gmx.net">http://lists.debian.org/201207021248.36541.zp6cge@gmx.net
 
Old 07-02-2012, 08:09 PM
Robert Holtzm
 
Default Backports on Squeeze

On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 12:48:36PM -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> On Monday 02 July 2012 03:46:30 Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> >
> > Remember that you are enabling Backports with your own risk in case
> > you decide to enable them.
>
> I second that. Especially when trying to install newer kernels from backports.
> Recently I had problems when 3.2. kernel upgrade from backports lead to
> deinstalling initramfs-tools. DON'T!

Not sure I can agree with that, I've installed the 3.2 kernel from
backports on two machines with no problems at all.

--
Bob Holtzman
If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer.
Key ID: 8D549279
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:43 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org