Re: New stable version after Sarge

[roberto@familiasanchez.net]

Quoting Thomas Jollans <thomas@jollans.com>:

> Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > One of the biggest disadvantages of Debian for me is the long time it 
> > takes for a new stable version.
> >
> > What about saying something like: the next stable release comes in the 
> > beginning of 2006?
> >
> > I can understand something like "Debian releases when it's ready", but 
> > many people have to work together. Maybe it's better to say: "a 
> > package releases when it's ready, but the deadline for the next Debian 
> > release is a fixed date".
> >
> > You will understand that my most important point is security-support.
> >
> > With regards,
> > Paul van der Vlis.
> >
> >
> Well, you could argue that debian branches are not perfectly named but:
> "stable" is best if you need *absolute* failsafety for critical jobs
> "testing" is best if you want a stable system with new(ish) software
> "unstable" is for everybody who needs the newest software, like me.
> 
> honestly, I have never had problems (yet) with using sid for day-to-day 
> stuff. If I needed something more production-ready, I'd use testing 
> because you have (almost) garantee that the software will work and you 
> will have security updates, too. (But not in the same quality as 
> "stable", as I understand it. If I needed to run a always-needed 
> very-important server on the internet, I would use "stable".
> 

I would strongly caution against using Sarge for a production system
until there is security team support.  See this message I posted to d-u
when someone pointed out that they were running sarge on some servers:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2004/12/msg03846.html

-Roberto Sanchez

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.