Re: Unstable/Testing bugfix issues (was Re: RedHat vs Debian?)
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 06:16:23PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
| on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 01:38:07PM -0700, Craig Dickson (crdic@yahoo.com) wrote:
| > Karsten M. Self wrote:
| >
| > > > I've found unstable to be of better use than testing. The reason is
| > > > that even bugfixes need at least 10 days to go into testing, whereas in
| > > > unstable they could be included the next day.
| > >
| > > ...but not security updates, IIRC. These should be available
| > > immediately.
| >
| > So you're saying that things that go into the security updates site
| > don't also appear in unstable? And this isn't just because the security
| > fixes are against stable packages that are already superseded in
| > unstable?
|
| I honestly don't know, I've got fuzzy memories suggesting this may be
| the case, and I figure it covers the ground. I'm still trying to get
| fully clear on what testing does/doesn't do anyways.
All testing does is say that the package's dependencies can be met
(though not necessarily all at once, that is two package may have
conflicting depends but by removing one the other can be installed)
and assure that there are no obvious bugs as those will have been
identified in sid during the 2 week delay.
It is supposed to be closer to stable because it doesn't get stuff
right away, but a side effect is that it doesn't get (security or
otherwise) updates as quickly.
I have left the stable security site in my sources.lst but I don't
think I've ever gotten anything from it (as the woody stuff has a
newer version number).
HTH,
-D
Reply to: