Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable?
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 03:34:55PM -0400, Default User wrote:
> What if a new Stable release introduces a major change to the existing
> distribution technology or methodology?
> For example, a new default filesystem is introduced. Or something like
> systemd infects the distribution or its rate of metastasis accelerates,
> etc. Or an important package management system or communication protocol
> is superseded or falls into disuse, or is simply abandoned by its
> developers or maintainers.
> I was wondering if an existing Unstable setup could diverge so far from
> Stable that major surgery would be necessary, or even complete replacement
> with Stable, followed by conversion to contemporaneous Unstable.
I think the core misunderstanding here is that you seem to be assuming
that, when a new stable comes out, a new unstable is created to go with
This is not the case. *NOTHING* ever goes from stable into unstable.
*EVERYTHING* in stable got there by way of unstable (with a stop off
in testing along the way). If a major change happens in stable, then it
already happened some months or years ago in unstable:
- New filesystems start in unstable, then move to stable.
- systemd for Debian was first implemented in unstable, then made its
way into stable.
- If apt were to somehow be replaced, that process would happen in
unstable and the new package management tools would first appear
there, before migrating into stable.
So, no, a new stable release would never break unstable. Any breakage
that may happen would be flowing in the other direction (something
coming from unstable breaks stable), and even that is extremely rare.
 ...except security updates, which have their own path into stable
that doesn't pass through unstable, but they're not going to be
introducing major changes anyhow.
This is pretty much what I was thinking, and is as expected.
Thank you to those who gave helpful, constructive replies.