Chris's Wiki :: blog/linux/AptSourcesManglingEffects Commentshttps://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/AptSourcesManglingEffects?atomcommentsDWiki2022-05-05T13:09:24ZRecent comments in Chris's Wiki :: blog/linux/AptSourcesManglingEffects.By Legooolas on /blog/linux/AptSourcesManglingEffectstag:CSpace:blog/linux/AptSourcesManglingEffects:72a77b385e7baafc46dc330977161e04e3b4d50eLegooolas<div class="wikitext"><blockquote><p>Ubuntu doesn't have the same release cycle, so it wouldn't work quite the same way. Of course using "stable" is also recipe for a surprise major distro upgrade.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Debian uses the codename by default as well, but the stable/oldstable/oldoldstable (yes, they overlap support by that much!) names are also available, and are used by some third-party repos (e.g. Ubiquiti and Google Chrome package repos).</p>
<p>So surprise major upgrades don't tend to happen unless you've done something like slap a different sources.list file in place as was the problem originally described here.</p>
</div>2022-05-05T13:09:24ZBy Miksa on /blog/linux/AptSourcesManglingEffectstag:CSpace:blog/linux/AptSourcesManglingEffects:21d33ce9dcef0aa41dcd821f9bdd3f30f4ecebfeMiksa<div class="wikitext"><p>Ubuntu doesn't have the same release cycle, so it wouldn't work quite the same way. Of course using "stable" is also recipe for a surprise major distro upgrade.</p>
<p>The RPM side has a better solution, string "$releasever" is in common use in repo paths.</p>
</div>2022-04-14T10:31:38ZBy dozzie on /blog/linux/AptSourcesManglingEffectstag:CSpace:blog/linux/AptSourcesManglingEffects:a3de34ab825d09c90a107694fc4e06bc61b9f977dozzie<div class="wikitext"><blockquote><p>I wish apt had symbolic names for 'the current distro release'.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If it's true, it's Ubuntu's fault, not APT's. Debian has had <code>stable</code>, <code>oldstable</code>, and <code>testing</code> names for a long time.</p>
</div>2022-04-14T08:31:55Z