Re: Dangers of "stable" in sources.list
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:44:10PM -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
> Gentlefolk:
>
> The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
> vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to offer
> `stable' as an entry in sources.list? Its drawback seems to
> be:
>
> o Every so often `stable' whacks you with about
> seventeen million updates, with the chance that you'll
> be left dead in the water.
>
> Using the name (`sarge', e.g.) has the drawback that:
>
> o Eventually a named distro will drop off the end of the
> world, and get no more security updates.
>
> OTOH, `unstable' is a necessary warning sign: Here be
> dragons. Someone starting with Debian needs to know that
> unstable has more surprises. (Though, in my experience,
> they're mostly like the ones you find in a box of Cracker
> Jacks.)
>
> So, my modest suggestion is that `stable' as a name
> should be eradicated. Roughly no downside, only closer
> adherence to the principle of least astonishment.
>
> [Runs for blast shelter...]
>
I'm not a Debian developer or maintainer, but I have looked at the
structure of the file system of Debian repositories and found a lot of
evidence that it grew rather than having been designed top down and
according to some well structured method.
Internally, there are places where a code name, such as 'etch' is
treated as an alias for a status name such as 'stable', and other
places where the reverse (status name is alias for code name) is
true. To reorganize the internals would involve a lot of work. There
are a lot of functioning programs that have knowledge of the existing
structure hard coded in. But, it works. And the effort involved in
training new users in the meaning of 'stable' and how it relates to
the meaning of 'etch' is really not great.
JMTCW
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@mesanetworks.net
Reply to: