-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I've been using Debian for a number of years, but my experience has typically been with servers where I have used the Stable branch for its reliability and security support. However, I recently began using Debian Stretch for my desktop and foresee a need for more frequent software updates than the approximate 2 year cadence of the Stable release. While the backports repository is great, it only covers a small subset of packages.
My question is how Debian Testing and Unstable compare in terms of stability. The Debian documentation suggests that Testing is more stable than Unstable because packages are delayed by 2-10 days and can only be promoted if no RC bugs are opened in that period [1]. Yet, other sources indicate that Testing can stay broken for weeks due to large transitions or the freeze before a new stable release [2]. One user described the releases this way: "Stable is never broken; Unstable is immediately fixed; Testing is neither" [3]. A Debian developer seemingly agreed, responding "That's because some things might break in testing during migration. E.g., when we upload a new major release of something like MATE and half of the packages take a bit longer to migrate to testing, you end up with half of the packages of MATE in testing on the old major version and the other half being on the new major version. This will definitely break" [4]. Chris Lamb also seemed to agree, asking the user why he had not considered Unstable over Testing [4]. In light of the above, it's not clear to me whether I should use Testing or Unstable. Presumably there are situations where one is better than the other. From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more likely to be consistent during transitions. It would be useful to hear more about the pros and cons of each release. In either case, I will be using ZFS for the root pool (I've been using ZFS on Linux for years and I love its resiliency to hardware failure and features) and take daily backups with bacula. As such, I can snapshot before an upgrade and rollback to the snapshot from an initramfs shell if an update somehow makes the system unbootable or otherwise causes serious breakage. As long as I take basic precautions such as reviewing the output of apt-listbugs and making sure that an 'apt-get dist-upgrade' doesn't want to remove half my system, am I likely to experience frequent breakage with either release[5]? What other steps can I take to avoid breakage? Thanks in advance for the information, Jason [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-ftparchives#s-test ing and https://www.debian.org/releases/ [2]https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/5h5pvb/is_debian_testing_wo rth_over_arch_linux/day5l8m/ [3]https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/5h5pvb/is_debian_testing_wo rth_over_arch_linux/daxr98u/ [4] https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/5h5pvb/is_debian_testing_w orth_over_arch_linux/daxpyj0/ [5]https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEq7ncLkwZsndhZmLWsskfuEl+i10FAlldgYcACgkQsskfuEl+ i12PBQ/7BDaI2dtUjFDc4Ifx5FDdwT5YaFshg7zinq7pbsvL1VF5y5IaTBB46pHX rVTUE79F8R6ONyTF0Sw97mnT8rxY34XH4oqOVSqe23ZTs++wnAc9g/ZtjyNsg6eM kKyqim9+pi7MLrihkO4/999TXR3dSrv/PzKW8p5uOGS4yqkBPMIildG/hrZ4BilD mJdhU6qLPrsTg+hmNBDikZOHfGA+ZmtxYHm0A5CZze7qnvFwLmNq39+OysBr2zRw TmfP+KbWMqSlpp859sk+hugRj7TDnADPb2uAZvhMXK7Xo676VcefvdX+fkLsCzZu jiOabsTFeGHr2e1ACLrxMJsBv55R1ySBYwuflaaTlpAWD2Xt9K4G0rSOKsiPTVS7 pR2k3bOpzgs3jSl+plWIAEFsSp/OjMg11Ow7DGdKWPo2RW2Kx5kcTMidSfa0ZkUI ZE2d3T5cCnPpfZ9MtyG2c9lQSX9RMrky3UNIWTqOUEzpwNhKP8gN5fsgNQSIDOYV WGc/fQzm2R46pvfVEKxMCcFfF4nz3CYUuWmQGPKa8GqtTI13/eW61gfWtuq6mRo8 wWRPiKuu/M/Op1EMcj2974PqPNH0U4kgWpvzYYkZkg2uS3Z8cP3DnQKd86XS/qhA cnczuP7g+VqhtK/iz+/WPDKfVosFRoctMvWY+h4/3eSArrGQY58= =IEce -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
