Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #181634 > unrolled thread

Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch Fjfj109 <fjfj109@protonmail.com> - 2017-06-01 07:10 +0200
    Re: Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 09:20 +0200
      Re: Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2017-06-01 13:30 +0200
        Re: Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-06-02 16:50 +0200
          Re: Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 01:30 +0200
            Re: Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 13:30 +0200
            Re: Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2017-06-05 11:40 +0200
            Re: Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch Siard <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> - 2017-06-05 13:30 +0200
              Re: Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-06-05 14:10 +0200
              Re: Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-06-05 14:30 +0200
              Re: Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-06-05 14:40 +0200

#181634 — Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi - wondering if with a standard sources list in Jessie (or any stable):

deb
http://deb.debian.org/debian
jessie main
deb-src
http://deb.debian.org/debian
jessie main

deb
http://deb.debian.org/debian
jessie-updates main
deb-src
http://deb.debian.org/debian
jessie-updates main

deb
http://security.debian.org/
jessie/updates main
deb-src
http://security.debian.org/
jessie/updates main

Whether it's enough to simply change jessie to stretch (or testing, or sid/unstable, whatever) and everything is fine?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#181635

On 01-06-17, Fjfj109 wrote:
> Hi - wondering if with a standard sources list in Jessie (or any stable):
> 
> deb
> http://deb.debian.org/debian
> jessie main
> deb-src
> http://deb.debian.org/debian
> jessie main
> 
> deb
> http://deb.debian.org/debian
> jessie-updates main
> deb-src
> http://deb.debian.org/debian
> jessie-updates main
> 
> deb
> http://security.debian.org/
> jessie/updates main
> deb-src
> http://security.debian.org/
> jessie/updates main
> 
> Whether it's enough to simply change jessie to stretch (or testing, or sid/unstable, whatever) and everything is fine?

It is usually enough to change it to stretch, if you follow it up with
all those update and upgrade commands. And read release documentation.
But it is not good to go from stable directly to unstable. If you want
to go to unstable, you first go to testing. Then, when you are sure that
everything went fine, you switch to unstable. And, you make backup of
your important data. Just in case.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181640

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:19:29AM +0200, Dejan Jocic wrote:
> On 01-06-17, Fjfj109 wrote:
> > Hi - wondering if with a standard sources list in Jessie (or any stable):

> It is usually enough to change it to stretch, if you follow it up with
> all those update and upgrade commands. And read release documentation.
> But it is not good to go from stable directly to unstable. If you want
> to go to unstable, you first go to testing. Then, when you are sure that
> everything went fine, you switch to unstable. And, you make backup of
> your important data. Just in case.

This is odd advice. (Not the bit about backups. Backups are
always important.)

Stretch will become the new stable in a few weeks.  Changing
to "stretch" will make that transition early, but changing to
"unstable" will make that transition and then, after stretch
becomes stable, will incur a lot of package churn and breakage.

If this discussion happened a year ago, the question would be
whether you really wanted to go to testing or to unstable. They
have different purposes.

-dsr-

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181702

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Sorry for the top-post but I think it is appropriate

all good advice below but returning on the initial question without advice,
sid/unstable does not have a security.debian.repository
so just the two deb.debian are enough.

For someone with an urge to try the latest and finest you can go to sid
now and then revert to testing and brace for the tsunami.

But read this example as a sample:
Arch Linux Security Advisory ASA-201705-22
Severity: High
Date : 2017-05-30
CVE-ID : CVE-2017-7494
Package : samba
Type : arbitrary code execution
Remote : Yes
Link : https://security.archlinux.org/AVG-279
The package samba before version 4.5.10-1 is vulnerable to arbitrary
code execution.
================================
The version of Jessie is still 4.2.... stretch and sid are on 4.5.8.... in arch based distros 4.5.10 is what they call stable!! This does not mean that 4.2 may not already be patched due to this security issue on jessie.
This is one package as an example.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Proper sources list from Jessie > Stretch
Local Time: June 1, 2017 2:28 PM
UTC Time: June 1, 2017 11:28 AM
From: dsr@randomstring.org
To: Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com>
debian-user@lists.debian.org

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:19:29AM +0200, Dejan Jocic wrote:
> On 01-06-17, Fjfj109 wrote:
> > Hi - wondering if with a standard sources list in Jessie (or any stable):

> It is usually enough to change it to stretch, if you follow it up with
> all those update and upgrade commands. And read release documentation.
> But it is not good to go from stable directly to unstable. If you want
> to go to unstable, you first go to testing. Then, when you are sure that
> everything went fine, you switch to unstable. And, you make backup of
> your important data. Just in case.

This is odd advice. (Not the bit about backups. Backups are
always important.)

Stretch will become the new stable in a few weeks. Changing
to "stretch" will make that transition early, but changing to
"unstable" will make that transition and then, after stretch
becomes stable, will incur a lot of package churn and breakage.

If this discussion happened a year ago, the question would be
whether you really wanted to go to testing or to unstable. They
have different purposes.

-dsr-

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181729

On 06/02/2017 10:41 AM, Fungi4All wrote:
> Sorry for the top-post but I think it is appropriate

It is not ever appropriate, no matter what you think. Ric


-- 
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181741

On Sunday 04 June 2017 00:27:06 Ric Moore wrote:
> On 06/02/2017 10:41 AM, Fungi4All wrote:
> > Sorry for the top-post but I think it is appropriate
>
> It is not ever appropriate, no matter what you think. Ric

+1

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181757

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 07:27:06PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
>On 06/02/2017 10:41 AM, Fungi4All wrote:
>>Sorry for the top-post but I think it is appropriate
>
>It is not ever appropriate, no matter what you think. Ric

I disagree. I think that top-posting is MOST appropriate when forwarding
a message. If I forward a message, I am sending it to someone who wasn't
previously part of the conversation, therefore it makes sense to preface
the message with a short introduction ("Please take a look at the
following and respond to John for me" or "John sent me this, I thought
you might enjoy it"). It gives the message some context. If you
bottom-post or interleave-post a forwarded message, then the recipient
starts reading a message which is not addressed to them and which may
make no sense without your comment.

In short, top-post for forwarded messages, no top-posting for replies.


-- 
For more information, please reread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181761

Ric Moore:
> Fungi4All:
> > Sorry for the top-post but I think it is appropriate
> 
> It is not ever appropriate, no matter what you think. Ric

I do not quite agree. Bottom posting and top posting are different
styles of responding; choosing between them depends on your purpose.

Especially in a corporate environment, the previous correspondence is
usually not meant to be read first, but rather meant as a reference.
That's why top posting is usually preferable there.

In a technical list like this one, bottom posting is obviously by far
the best method - although exceptions do exist, e.g. when for some
reason it is desirable that the reply is being read first.
What you *think*, your intuition, is usually a good indication for that.
Maybe better not let it overrule by rigid rules....?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181764

On Monday, June 05, 2017 07:19:40 AM Siard wrote:
> Ric Moore:
> > Fungi4All:
> > > Sorry for the top-post but I think it is appropriate
> > 
> > It is not ever appropriate, no matter what you think. Ric
> 
> I do not quite agree. Bottom posting and top posting are different
> styles of responding; choosing between them depends on your purpose.
> 
> Especially in a corporate environment, the previous correspondence is
> usually not meant to be read first, but rather meant as a reference.
> That's why top posting is usually preferable there.
> 
> In a technical list like this one, bottom posting is obviously by far
> the best method - although exceptions do exist, e.g. when for some
> reason it is desirable that the reply is being read first.
> What you *think*, your intuition, is usually a good indication for that.
> Maybe better not let it overrule by rigid rules....?

+1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181765

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 13:19:40 +0200
Siard <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

> Ric Moore:
> > Fungi4All:  
> > > Sorry for the top-post but I think it is appropriate  
> > 
> > It is not ever appropriate, no matter what you think. Ric  
> 
> I do not quite agree. Bottom posting and top posting are different
> styles of responding; choosing between them depends on your purpose.
> 
> Especially in a corporate environment, the previous correspondence is
> usually not meant to be read first, but rather meant as a reference.
> That's why top posting is usually preferable there.
> 
> In a technical list like this one, bottom posting is obviously by far
> the best method - although exceptions do exist, e.g. when for some
> reason it is desirable that the reply is being read first.



> What you *think*, your intuition, is usually a good indication for
> that. Maybe better not let it overrule by rigid rules....?
> 

Indeed. 'Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is
right.'

Rules were *not* made to be broken, but they should be taken as
guidance rather than being unquestioningly obeyed. I'll damn well use a
goto if I want to...

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181767

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 01:19:40PM +0200, Siard wrote:
> I do not quite agree. Bottom posting and top posting are different
> styles of responding; choosing between them depends on your purpose.

Regardless of this, the messages from that funguy person are unreadable.
It looks like he's using Microsoft Outlook.  The quoted sections are not
visibly distinct from the new text, and he uses long lines.  It's just
an unstructured wall of text.

So, the result is that I often delete his messages without making much
attempt to read them.  If I have to spend more than 2 seconds trying
to figure out which part of the text is even HIS, rather than someone
else's, it's simply not worth my time and energy.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web