Distribution upgrade
Derek Broughton
news at pointerstop.ca
Sat Nov 17 18:04:04 UTC 2007
Donn wrote:
>> The way to have a 'current' system with minimal updates is to continually
>> push the tested packages from the "unstable" system to the "stable"
>> system - but getting that cycle down to less than 6 months seems
>> unrealistic (if anyone had asked me, I'd have said 6 month cycles were
>> unrealistic!).
> How does this differ from:
>
>> The one thing I'd really like to see from Ubuntu is
>> a "current" repo - like Debian's "stable" - that always points to the
>> current stable release.
> This?
There are no symlinks. On Debian, if I point to "stable" (or "testing"),
when they make a new release, I'm now pointing to the newer version. On
Ubuntu, you have to change your sources (and the upgrade tools, _will_ do
that for you, but I'm not happy with that process - after all, it modified
my sources and removed all my personal overrides...).
> I don't know Debian. It sounds like it has a 'stable' repo that's always
> close to being up to date and you can just roll onwards. '
Not even close. The "sarge" version was in testing for over 3 years, iirc.
It was 'stable' for a year, before the next release.
> Even if it's 6 monthly,
> that's *still* better than upgrading an entire O/S -- with all the heavy
> lifting that brings.
?? The 6-month cycle is Ubuntu's. That's my point - you either have a
system that routinely breaks (like "sid") or you have a system with staged
updates (like ubuntu). There's no way anyone's come up with to give you a
continuously upgraded _stable_ systems.
--
derek
More information about the kubuntu-users
mailing list