On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:44:10PM -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. > > [Runs for blast shelter...] >
I'm not a Debian developer or maintainer, but I have looked at the structure of the file system of Debian repositories and found a lot of evidence that it grew rather than having been designed top down and according to some well structured method. Internally, there are places where a code name, such as 'etch' is treated as an alias for a status name such as 'stable', and other places where the reverse (status name is alias for code name) is true. To reorganize the internals would involve a lot of work. There are a lot of functioning programs that have knowledge of the existing structure hard coded in. But, it works. And the effort involved in training new users in the meaning of 'stable' and how it relates to the meaning of 'etch' is really not great. JMTCW -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
