[kwlug-disc] definition of debian's "stable"?

Robert P. J. Day rpjday at crashcourse.ca
Sun Aug 16 15:17:25 EDT 2009

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Eric Gerlach wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:59:50PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, L.D. Paniak wrote:
> >   that seems fairly adamant that, once you install a new "stable"
> > release, the *only* updates/upgrades you will see are
> > security-related.  no big fixes or performance upgrades.  or am i
> > misreading that?  or does a 5.0.1 or 5.0.2 "release" represent a
> > new release that *does* incorporate bug fixes?
> I believe this is true.  Bug fixes, other than security, are allowed
> in point releases.  Typically, major versions of packages are not
> allowed, though.  The fixes usually have to be backported to the
> current version in stable.

  aha!  he said, happily drinking wine.  i just learned something else
significant.  the debian FAQ points out a fairly basic fact of which i
was unaware -- that 3.0 was a totally different *release* from 3.1
(3.0 being woody and 3.1 being sarge).

  which only confuses me more.  so if i was working under 3.0, would
3.1 be the next major release?  it seems that way.  and if that's
true, how does 5.0 relate to 5.0.1?

  i'll keep reading the FAQ and the rest of the online docs but, at
this point, i have to say that the explanations online for this are
really pretty confusing, frequently contradicting one another.  debian
versioning seriously deserves a comprehensive and complete


Robert P. J. Day                               Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

        Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry.

Web page:                                          http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday

More information about the kwlug-disc mailing list