Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #14004

Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 12:17:53AM +0200, Antoine Le Gonidec wrote:
> Le Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 09:49:20AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > Greg McPherran <gm@mcpherranweb.com> writes:
> > > I am considering using unstable, and would be happy to provide feedback
> > > on any findings. If someone could point me to the best contact for such
> > > feedback, so that I may be helpful, I would be grateful.
> > (…)
> > I would recommend testing over unstable unless you're very familiar with
> > Linux and comfortable with your ability to roll back to previous kernels,
> > downgrade and pin packages, and fix weird problems. Unstable doesn't break
> > that often, but it is prone to more low-level breakage than testing is.
> 
> And I would recommend unstable over testing, for security reasons, less
> risks of packages disappearing, and bugs actually being fixed in a
> timely manner.
> 
> In my 15 years of user support, a huge majority of reported problems
> were with testing. But the sample might be biased by testing being the
> one chosen by less experienced users, wrongly thinking it would be some
> kind of middle ground between stable and unstable.

In a way, it is: when packages land in testing they have passed through
a rough first test. So in a way, you get less surprises in testing.

In some other way... it's the other way around: packages "disappear" from
testing when some bigger issue is found, but they stay on stable. Plus,
since both don't have a security policy, security issues get (arguably)
fixed faster on testing.

If you (try to) install packages from a future suite (FrankenDebian),
then testing is more often the better bet. If you run a future suite
wholesale, the situation is not so clear. The difference to a rolling
release is that in the latter case, more effort is put to avoid
breakage.

Cheers
-- 
tomás

Back to linux.debian.project | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

RE: Debian - Release Cadence Options Greg McPherran <gm@mcpherranweb.com> - 2025-10-16 18:10 +0200
  Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options Mechtilde Stehmann <mechtilde@debian.org> - 2025-10-16 18:40 +0200
  Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> - 2025-10-17 14:40 +0200
  Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options "Jonathan Dowland" <jmtd@debian.org> - 2025-10-17 15:50 +0200
  RE: Debian - Release Cadence Options thomas@goirand.fr - 2025-10-17 15:50 +0200
    RE: Debian - Release Cadence Options Greg McPherran <gm@mcpherranweb.com> - 2025-10-17 17:30 +0200
      Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2025-10-17 19:00 +0200
        Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options Antoine Le Gonidec <vv221@debian.org> - 2025-10-18 00:40 +0200
          Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-10-18 07:00 +0200
            Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options Antoine Le Gonidec <vv221@debian.org> - 2025-10-18 16:10 +0200
              Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options tomas@tuxteam.de - 2025-10-18 17:00 +0200
              Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options Mathias Behrle <m9s@mailbox.org> - 2025-10-19 02:30 +0200
            Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-10-18 17:00 +0200
              Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-10-18 18:40 +0200
          Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2025-10-18 12:40 +0200
          Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options "Martin Dosch" <martin@mdosch.de> - 2025-10-18 16:10 +0200
      Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options Marc Haber <mh+debian-project@zugschlus.de> - 2025-10-18 12:40 +0200
      Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options Greg McPherran <gm@mcpherranweb.com> - 2025-10-18 16:10 +0200

csiph-web