Re: 2.2 vs 2.4 kernels (OT)

[Reid Gilman <blueplazma@attbi.com>]

I think Debian calls one release stable because although the newer kernels and packages may be fairly stable, anything in a stable release should be crash-proof.  No security holes should be present and it should be usable on mission critical systems.  I wouldn't want my system running on a Fortune 500 company's server because its always a work in progress. The stable distro is pretty much finished and it works.

On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 19:52, Mark Roach wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 17:20, Reid Gilman wrote:
> > The Debian stable release is that, stable.  It is not supposed to have
> > the latest and greatest features, if you want to get the 2.4.x kernels
> > (which in my experience are perfectly stable) you can, or you can get
> > the testing or unstable distro.  But that's why Debian has three
> > distros.
>
> I am curious, I have heard both explanations at different times
> regarding the meaning of stable... some people have said that only
> stable versions of software are (or should be) included while others
> have suggested that the term 'stable' applies to the
> packaging/dependencies
>
> Does debian policy indicate the 'One True Definition' of 'stable'?
>
> Not trying to start flames (I swear!), just curious
>
> -Mark
>
>
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part