On 06 Nov 2003 01:06:25 -0500, Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to debian-devel: > Personally I'm of the opinion that stable is useless. It certainly > has no use for me. Perhaps if I ran a production server on debian I > might think otherwise but I rather doubt it. When I had production > servers they all ran 2.4 and needed the latest stable releases of > anything important like database, mail, web server services. > If I ran production servers on debian today I would probably pick > an arbitrary date off snapshot.debian.org and declare that my > "stable". If I had security problems I would pick a date recent > enough to have the security fixes, test it, and declare it > "stable". > It wouldn't be guaranteed to be bug-free, but then nothing is. > Stable has tons of minor bugs that no upstream maintainer would > listen to because they were fixed aeons ago anyways, or more likely > are no longer relevant in current sources.
Sounds more like a case of "stable plus backports of the important pieces". Now if only somebody were telling me where to find "stable" backports for Woody of the packages I need ... (Probably I'm too much of a skeptic for not believing that a random hit in the search engine at apt-get.org is what I should be using.) /* era */ -- formail -s procmail <http://www.iki.fi/era/spam/ >http://www.euro.cauce.org/ cat | more | cat<http://www.iki.fi/era/unix/award.html>http://www.debian.org/
