Re: 2.2 vs 2.4 kernels (OT)
Thus spake Mark Roach last Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 07:52:15PM -0400:
> 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
To add another pickle in your salad of definitions to what is called
the "stable distribution" - let's just say that here stable is close
to "static" - no major upgrades are committed to the stable tree save
for security updates (which are mostly bug-fixes and not upgrades in
a sense). It has been done like this to prevent breaking of dependencies,
as well as to ensure that each piece of software would work as fine
as possible, and would be tolerable enough for usage in production
environments. So in a sense, it's actually "all" of what you've heard;)
--
-->paolo
Paolo Alexis Falcone <pfalcone@free.net.ph> GnuPG KeyID: 0xEADFF6F4
University of the Philippines Manila
_______________________________________________________________________________
"I think ideology sucks. This world would be a better place if people have less
ideology, and a whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and because others
might find it useful, not because I have religion."" --Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________________________________________
Philippine Free Network Group
free.net.ph
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: