-----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----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
