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

Re: Dangers of "stable" in sources.list

On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:44:10PM -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
>    The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny'
> vs. ... got me to thinking.  Is there any reason to offer
> `stable' as an entry in sources.list?  Its drawback seems to
> be:
>     o Every so often `stable' whacks you with about
>       seventeen million updates, with the chance that you'll
>       be left dead in the water.

As others have mentioned: This only happens if your admin blindly
installs all the updates available.

> Using the name (`sarge', e.g.) has the drawback that:
>     o Eventually a named distro will drop off the end of the
>       world, and get no more security updates.
[snip unstable]

>    So, my modest suggestion is that `stable' as a name
> should be eradicated.  Roughly no downside, only closer
> adherence to the principle of least astonishment.

I believe that this "astonishment" comes from a basic misunderstanding.
- Referencing any of stable/testing/unstable/sid means "follow the
  debian releases"
- Referencing any of hamm/woody/sarge/etch means "Stick with $codename
  and hope for security updates"

There is a need to be able to express both - different sysadmins,
different skills, different preferences etc etc.

Whether the default install should say "stable" or "etch" is a different
matter. Don't be surprised if the current lenny (or any future RC) says
"testing" though...

> [Runs for blast shelter...]
You may be assimilated. Resistance will provide greater knowledge.

Karl E. Jorgensen
karl@jorgensen.org.uk  http://www.jorgensen.org.uk/
karl@jorgensen.com     http://karl.jorgensen.com
==== Today's fortune:
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit.
	[There is no great genius without some touch of madness.]
		-- Seneca

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: