[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Hi, I've installed woody on my Alphaserver, but the packages on it are quite old so I was looking for something a little more up to date, even if it's not that stable, that's ok. Going to the debian.org website for this, it was not immeiately clear to me which ISO's I needed to download, so



On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:43:00AM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> There is testing, solid, very seldom breakages, quite current. No
> security support. Automatically generated from unstable (see below).

> There is unstable. Almost everything new goes in here, so if you use
> unstable, you might experience suprises once in a while, and please
> report bugs if things don't work. Recommended if you want to help
> develop Debian. Packages proven ok are automatically advanced to
> testing. Known security problems usually cause a prompt upload into
> unstable (and, if everything goes well, 10 days later into testing).

It's worth noting that there is a very high frequency of things *not*
going well.  http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html.gz
shows the list of 1051 packages that have versions in unstable that are
not in testing; and many of these are older than 10 days.  (We're
actually doing much better now than in the past -- lately, it seems that
over half the packages not in testing are just in the waiting period.
But consider the security implications when almost half of package
updates are held up by other problems.)

> Experimental. Don't use it unless you know what it is and the
> consequences.

Experimental does not constitute a complete distribution, and apt won't
even pull from it by default.  There's probably little need to even warn
people about it, given the work it takes to actually use it. :)

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: