Thus spake Mark Roach last Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 07:52:15PM -0400: > 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
To add another pickle in your salad of definitions to what is called the "stable distribution" - let's just say that here stable is close to "static" - no major upgrades are committed to the stable tree save for security updates (which are mostly bug-fixes and not upgrades in a sense). It has been done like this to prevent breaking of dependencies, as well as to ensure that each piece of software would work as fine as possible, and would be tolerable enough for usage in production environments. So in a sense, it's actually "all" of what you've heard;) -- -->paolo Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG KeyID: 0xEADFF6F4 University of the Philippines Manila _______________________________________________________________________________ "I think ideology sucks. This world would be a better place if people have less ideology, and a whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and because others might find it useful, not because I have religion."" --Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________________________________________ Philippine Free Network Group free.net.ph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
