Re: debian unstable, stable enough?

[Johan Kullstam <kullstj-ml@comcast.net>]

"Jordi Carrillo" <jordilinllistes@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm using Debian testing and I was thinking about switching to unstable. Is
> Debian unstable, stable enough for a Desktop system? Are there broken
> dependencies in unstable?

I run unstable/sid rather than testing.  You have to be aware that in
unstable you sometimes get minor glitches (not often, really only
every few months for me) that need to fixed up.

For example, just this past couple of days, the sysv-init package
broke by not installing /etc/rc?.d stuff properly.  A new init package
came out yesterday or so with a warning and some instructions.  I had
to figure the packages that have init.d stuff that was recently
installed.  Then I just had aptitude reinstall them.  This is the
kind of thing that happens in unstable.  You kind of need to be aware
and keep on top of things and be able fix the stuff that goes
pear shaped.

I haven't had a major hosing of the system but that's always possible.

Testing has an aging process which prevents stuff like the above init
problem from entering.  However, the aging process is automatic and
has no override (unless you drag down stuff from unstable explicitly
yourself - which is a very valid mode of operation).

This means that if a bug does enter testing, it can take a while for
the fix to arrive.  If dependencies churn, it can sometimes take a
really long time for that fix to arrive.  And did I mention that the
aging/dependencies is automatic?  No help will come to debian testing
for broken packages except through the aging or your explicit
installation of unstable packages or compile your own.

Furthermore, security bugs are not fixed in testing until the package
ages properly.  Truely, testing is the distribution in which you
are most "on your own".

I figure I am better off running unstable than testing.  My personal
opinion is that
stable - if you run a server or system upon which you depends (e.g., a
  computer used for your job that you really don't want to have issues
  with -- even if that's a desktop) or don't want to be on top of upgrade
  details.
unstable - if you want new stuff and can handle the occasional
  breakage
testing - not for user, only for people assembling the next stable

Others will of course disagree.

> Thanks

-- 
Johan KULLSTAM