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

Re: Dangers of "stable" in sources.list

Martin Marcher wrote:

On 5/3/07, martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> wrote:
also sprach Martin Marcher <martin.marcher@gmail.com> [2007.05.03.1217 +0200]:
> So what are the hints wether to use stable the actual name or not?

From my book:

Exactly my opinion too, i was more interested in hearing why I would
wan't stable instead of the hardcoded name. I just can't think of any
reason to do that and practically have really use for it (except for
the testing or unstable distribution as I pointed out initially)

Am I solving problems here that wouldn't exist in the first place?
Am I ignorant of why there is a "stable" tree (apart from the
psychological impact that it now indeed is stable)?

As soon as I read the recommendation in Martin Krafft's book, I immediately changed all the lines in my sources.list from stable to sarge - if I hadn't, I expect I would have been very unpleasantly surprised upon doing my first apt-get upgrade following Etch becoming stable. Thanks Martin!

And ever since, I've wondered why the default sources.list specifies "stable" instead of a specific distribution. It seems like a recipe for disaster for an awful lot of people.


Reply to: