On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 09:37, Brad Beveridge wrote: > 1) Stable > - Older packages, very solid > - Code name???? Currently called woody.
> 2) Testing > - Newer packages, still quite stable, not bleeding edge > - Code name??? Currently called sarge > 3) Unstable > - Bleeding edge Yes, but stable enough to run a workstation on :-) > - Code name??? Always called sid > Basically, I don't know what the code names are & I am not sure if I > have testing & stable around the right way. Could someone please > enlighten me? The code names are basically unimportant. The 'distribution' that you choose simply informs the package manager what versions to get and track. You can, if you want, install packages from 'unstable' into a 'stable' machine ... the downside is that this might require you to upgrade loads of dependancies as well (like libc), so think carefully :-) There are other 'distributions', like backports.org, which takes up-to-date software that would otherwise exist in 'unstable', and build it with 'stable' versions of the dependancies. You can therefore install a backported application into a 'stable' box, without having to upgrade loads of dependancies (especially libc!) Security upgrades are performed to stable versions. Take the recent kernel security problems - these were fixed in new kernel versions by kernel.org. The Debian security team applied the patches to the older kernel versions associated with 'stable' a couple of days later - so your 'stable' box could continue running 2.4.18, but would include the latest security fixes. For a workstation, I've had no problem with 'unstable'. For servers, I track 'stable', but include extra software from 'backports.org' and 'unstable' where necessary. :-) -jim
