Re: 2.2 vs 2.4 kernels (OT)

[Reid Gilman]

I think Debian calls one release stable because although the newer kernels and packages may be fairly stable, anything in a stable release should be crash-proof.  No security holes should be present and it should be usable on mission critical systems.  I wouldn't want my system running on a Fortune 500 company's server because its always a work in progress. The stable distro is pretty much finished and it works.

On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 19:52, Mark Roach wrote:

On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 17:20, Reid Gilman wrote:
> The Debian stable release is that, stable.  It is not supposed to have
> the latest and greatest features, if you want to get the 2.4.x kernels
> (which in my experience are perfectly stable) you can, or you can get
> the testing or unstable distro.  But that's why Debian has three
> distros.

I am curious, I have heard both explanations at different times
regarding the meaning of stable... some people have said that only
stable versions of software are (or should be) included while others
have suggested that the term 'stable' applies to the
packaging/dependencies

Does debian policy indicate the 'One True Definition' of 'stable'?

Not trying to start flames (I swear!), just curious

-Mark


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

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part