On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 10:16:46 +1200, Chris wrote in message <20120406221645.GA24134@tal>:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 05:21:01PM +0100, Lisi wrote: > > On Friday 06 April 2012 17:02:05 Chris Bannister wrote: > > > Ummm, well, obviously if you have backports in your sources list > > > you are no longer running stable. > > > > It depends on the pinning. I have it in my sources.list, but I > > have to ask for it expressly for a particular package. I don't > > feel that one or two backported packages immediately means that the > > system is not stable/Stable. What about the multimedia repository? > > Opera? etc. Obviously anything that comes out of any repository > > other than main is not true-blue-pucka Stable. But in the real > > world one sometimes has to compromise, and I would still feel able > > to claim that my Stable box is just that, Stable. > > You seem to be confusing the meaning of stable in the distribution > sense. It doesn't mean "free of bugs" or "unlikely to crash", it > means unchanging/not moving. So by having backports you are changing > that. > > Likewise, unstable doesn't mean "buggy" or "likely to crash", it means > "constantly changing". > > Perhaps better names would have been > unpredictable/testing/predictable? > ..naaah, call them "development/testing/production." ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120410231402.73e4e...@nb6.lan
