• Zill
  • #! Member
  • Offline
  • From: Lincolnshire, UK
  • Registered: 2009-10-25
  • Posts: 53

Re: Updating Statler images

Milozzy wrote:

...I activated backports by default on 4 different installations...

I don't quite understand this.  If you activated backports then, presumably, this was not the default setting in the sources.list.

I know plenty of users want to use backports.  However, I suggest that this should be a user configured option during installation, allowing those of us who don't want to use backports generally to start with a "clean" sources.list by default.  This will then help us avoid problems when running the first update/dist-upgrade, which could install unwanted versions of applications if backports were already enabled.

Linux User #305555 - Ubuntu User - CrunchBang User - Linux Mint User
  • Registered: 2011-02-22
  • Posts: 425

Re: Updating Statler images

Zill wrote:
Milozzy wrote:

...I activated backports by default on 4 different installations...

I don't quite understand this.  If you activated backports then, presumably, this was not the default setting in the sources.list.

I know plenty of users want to use backports.  However, I suggest that this should be a user configured option during installation, allowing those of us who don't want to use backports generally to start with a "clean" sources.list by default.  This will then help us avoid problems when running the first update/dist-upgrade, which could install unwanted versions of applications if backports were already enabled.

My bad, I did not explain myself well.
3 of those are Debian Squeeze installations, 1 the "original" #! Statler, so none of them originally had backports in the sources.list.
I just wanted to let Philip know that his personal preferences and his ignoring Debian warning are not isolated, so I was not talking about the opportunity of having backports activated in #!. wink
Sorry for be cryptic big_smile

As your other point concern...what's the problem?
Corenominal listened to everybody's opinions and said he's thinking about creating two different versions,so now is all about user choice smile Once again cheers for the boss!

ps. sorry for joking about your bold/italic behaviour, just kidding big_smile

Milozzy's Website

  • pvsage
  • Internal Affairs
  • Offline
  • From: Section Six
  • Registered: 2009-10-18
  • Posts: 6,006

Re: Updating Statler images

@Zill:  I think Milozzy means that he activated backports and pinned Squeeze at 100, so that updates to backports are installed by default, rather than requiring installation via "-t squeeze-backports".

while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );
  • Registered: 2011-02-22
  • Posts: 425

Re: Updating Statler images

pvsage wrote:

@Zill:  I think Milozzy means that he activated backports and pinned Squeeze at 100, so that updates to backports are installed by default, rather than requiring installation via "-t squeeze-backports".

Exactly wink

Milozzy's Website

  • Zill
  • #! Member
  • Offline
  • From: Lincolnshire, UK
  • Registered: 2009-10-25
  • Posts: 53

Re: Updating Statler images

Thanks for the clarification Milozzy & pvsage.  I have to stop being so pedantic. wink

Milozzy wrote:

As your other point concern...what's the problem?
Corenominal listened to everybody's opinions and said he's thinking about creating two different versions,so now is all about user choice smile Once again cheers for the boss!

It will likely involve more work for "the boss" to maintain two different versions (i.e. with and without backports) but if he is willing to do this then I would certainly be happy with the "new" #!

Milozzy wrote:

ps. sorry for joking about your bold/italic behaviour, just kidding big_smile

Me! Bold behaviour?  Well I never! smile

Linux User #305555 - Ubuntu User - CrunchBang User - Linux Mint User
  • Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 2,087

Re: Updating Statler images

I think we can close this now.

Discussion continues here: http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/post/187778/