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

Re: Release statusus



On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 02:43:42PM +0200, Neo wrote:
> Hi Colin,
> 
> 	so, sumarizing for my situation: it's no use tracking a
> unstable 'release' because it just isn't that: a release, and never 
> will be.

Different people put different values on these things. My laptop runs
unstable quite happily; admittedly that's because I need that for Debian
development, but it gives me minimum time from bug-fix to installation.
My desktop at work runs testing because it's within a fairly safe
corporate network so I don't worry too much about the lack of quick
security updates, and I wanted some things that weren't in stable. My
server at home runs stable because I don't want it to break, I don't
want to spend too much time configuring and reconfiguring it, and it has
to be secure.

> 	Then why not take the logical step, pick a kernel release 
> (or combination of linux/hurd/*bsd releases), put a name on it, 
> put it in testing and let it grow to a stable release? This name
> sid just confuses things, in my humble opinion.

Hm? Kernel releases are only a very small part of the development of the
Debian distribution. They aren't suitable for this purpose.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]



Reply to: