On 2004-03-19, Paul Johnson penned: > > "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip] >> Unstable is where bug fixes, new packages, etc are first introduced >> into a debian distribution. (There's also something called >> "experimental," but that's not a proper distribution.) > > The important ones, like security updates, make it down pretty > quickly. > >> Say you have package A that makes it past unstable and into testing. >> Then someone finds a bug in package A. It turns out to be an icky >> bug, and it takes quite a while to fix it. The bug will be fixed in >> unstable before trickling down into testing. > > And in unstable, a package can be broken for months. It's really not > for people who aren't ready to work for it at times. > >> Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for stable and >> unstable almost immediately. Then those using testing distributions >> must wait the allotted amount of time before receiving the unstable >> update in testing. > > If you're in a spot where security is absolutely critical, you should > only be using stable anyway. I wasn't claiming that unstable is a better choice than stable for, er, stability; I was claiming it was a better choice than testing. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
