Re: Dangers of "stable" in sources.list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:18:37AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 21:44 -0400, Max Hyre wrote:
> > Gentlefolk:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > OTOH, `unstable' is a necessary warning sign: Here be
> > dragons. Someone starting with Debian needs to know that
> > unstable has more surprises. (Though, in my experience,
> > they're mostly like the ones you find in a box of Cracker
> > Jacks.)
> >
> > 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.
>
> Okay, so let me get this straight.
>
> You propose to eliminate "stable" as a release. To keep people from
> hurting themselves. Especially unwitting "auto-updating" ID10Ts. Ok, let
> me get this straight... How is this a good thing?
I find the unstable/sid, $RELEASE_NAME. and testing tags useful. But I
dont recall any use for using 'stable' in a source list. If you use
unstable/sid, it need constant monitoring, and this is what all expect.
Using $RELEASE_NAME, at or after a release, gives a useful result. Using
a $RELEASE_NAME, before a release, gives different results depending
upon when you use them in the release cycle, but if carefully used, can
give reasonable results. 'testing' is similar to $RELEASE_NAME when used
before a release but can lead to some more issues at release time, and
thus is less useful. And similarly, stable, is similar to $RELEASE_NAME,
but has far worse results if you dont watch the release cycle, which is
why I'd never use it. So I'd be for one of these two:
- -removing the public link to 'stable'
- -putting a strong warning in the Debian reference about the hazards of
using it.
So if someone uses 'stable', do tell. And if so, would you want a newbie
to use it?
- -k
- --
| .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: |
| : :' : The Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/|
| `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and |
| `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 |
| my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |
|join the new debian-community.org to help Debian! |
|_______ Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed _______|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGOuV0v8UcC1qRZVMRAugCAJ9c8KTQ0fTHlz7ibWka36YSgRyUgACfdAbI
AlXCW/D5bWVghDeXYqU3HvA=
=0X7D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: