Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable

rhkramer
Aside: for my own self respect, I want to make some sort of disclaimer here
(with maybe several points):  I'm sure that sometimes I post things that do
any of (1) make other people cringe (for one reason or another), (2) make me
look uninformed (or worse), and (3) other causes for embarrassment (to myself
of others).

I finally realized that the "normal" progression / hierarchy of the Debian
releases is from Unstable to Testing to Stable.

I never looked it up -- I assume that, like most people, we don't look up
everything but make assumptions based on past experience.  I expected that the
normal progression for Debian releases would be from Testing (trying all / any
kind of new, possibly weird things), to Unstable (concentrating on things that
survived some initial testing and now maybe being released to a select group
for some real pounding en route to Stable.

(I've never used anything other than stable releases, so my misunderstanding
hasn't had any real world effect on my systems, but I have been confused at
times, and suspect that maybe one other person out there may have similarly
been confused.)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable

Andrei POPESCU-2
On Lu, 13 apr 20, 09:29:50, [hidden email] wrote:
> Aside: for my own self respect, I want to make some sort of disclaimer here
> (with maybe several points):  I'm sure that sometimes I post things that do
> any of (1) make other people cringe (for one reason or another), (2) make me
> look uninformed (or worse), and (3) other causes for embarrassment (to myself
> of others).
>
> I finally realized that the "normal" progression / hierarchy of the Debian
> releases is from Unstable to Testing to Stable.

Correct. If you were to examine the archive with an ftp client you could
notice that oldstable is actually a symlink to stretch, stable is a
symlink to buster and testing is a symlink to bullseye (the codename for
the next release).

Unstable always points to sid.

> I never looked it up -- I assume that, like most people, we don't look up
> everything but make assumptions based on past experience.  I expected that the
> normal progression for Debian releases would be from Testing (trying
> all / any kind of new, possibly weird things),

That would be experimental (also known as rc-buggy).

> to Unstable (concentrating on things that survived some initial
> testing and now maybe being released to a select group for some real
> pounding en route to Stable.

Trivia: Long ago Debian only had stable and unstable, testing was
introduced later.

Basically packages that are meant for the next stable release are
uploaded to unstable. If they satisfy certain criteria established by
the Release Team (no new RC bugs, tests and/or age in unstable, etc.)
they migrate to testing automatically.

In order to prepare for release, testing is "frozen", i.e. the automatic
migration is disabled and only targeted fixes for RC bugs are manually
approved by the Release Team[1].

When the Release Team considers everything is "ready"[2] the release
happens.

The next release starts as copy of stable and automatic migration from
unstable is enabled again.

[1] This is a simplification, in practice the freeze has different
stages with different rules.
[2] RC bug count is low enough, the distribution overall is consistent,
etc.

Hope this explains,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable

steef-5
In reply to this post by rhkramer

Hi there,
youre are far from an idiot. All this stuff like stable etc/ etc. rests on conventions. You wrote you never insxtalled something other than
stable. So: do not worry why should you worry about this shit. In a philosophical way your point of view if you have any developed now on
this topic can be argumented as well I think.
have a nice sunday,
steef


[hidden email] schreef op 13-04-20 om 15:29:

> Aside: for my own self respect, I want to make some sort of disclaimer here
> (with maybe several points):  I'm sure that sometimes I post things that do
> any of (1) make other people cringe (for one reason or another), (2) make me
> look uninformed (or worse), and (3) other causes for embarrassment (to myself
> of others).
>
> I finally realized that the "normal" progression / hierarchy of the Debian
> releases is from Unstable to Testing to Stable.
>
> I never looked it up -- I assume that, like most people, we don't look up
> everything but make assumptions based on past experience.  I expected that the
> normal progression for Debian releases would be from Testing (trying all / any
> kind of new, possibly weird things), to Unstable (concentrating on things that
> survived some initial testing and now maybe being released to a select group
> for some real pounding en route to Stable.
>
> (I've never used anything other than stable releases, so my misunderstanding
> hasn't had any real world effect on my systems, but I have been confused at
> times, and suspect that maybe one other person out there may have similarly
> been confused.)
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable

Kushal Kumaran-4
In reply to this post by rhkramer
[hidden email] writes:

> Aside: for my own self respect, I want to make some sort of disclaimer here
> (with maybe several points):  I'm sure that sometimes I post things that do
> any of (1) make other people cringe (for one reason or another), (2) make me
> look uninformed (or worse), and (3) other causes for embarrassment (to myself
> of others).
>
> I finally realized that the "normal" progression / hierarchy of the Debian
> releases is from Unstable to Testing to Stable.
>
> I never looked it up -- I assume that, like most people, we don't look up
> everything but make assumptions based on past experience.  I expected that the
> normal progression for Debian releases would be from Testing (trying all / any
> kind of new, possibly weird things), to Unstable (concentrating on things that
> survived some initial testing and now maybe being released to a select group
> for some real pounding en route to Stable.
>

There is an experimental "distribution" that is for trying all kinds of
new and weird things.

> (I've never used anything other than stable releases, so my misunderstanding
> hasn't had any real world effect on my systems, but I have been confused at
> times, and suspect that maybe one other person out there may have similarly
> been confused.)

You might find
https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.release-lifecycle.html
informative.

--
regards,
kushal

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable

Sven Hartge-5
Kushal Kumaran <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There is an experimental "distribution" that is for trying all kinds of
> new and weird things.

It is of note that "experimental" in itself is not a complete set of
packages like "unstable" is, it is intended as an addon to "unstable"
and has to be used in conjunction with it.

Grüße,
Sven.

--
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable

John Hasler-3
Sven writes:
> It is of note that "experimental" in itself is not a complete set of
> packages like "unstable" is, it is intended as an addon to "unstable"
> and has to be used in conjunction with it.

It is also of note that Unstable is unstable in that it is constantly
changing, not that it is full of buggy packages.  One of the ways in
which it can be unstable is that new versions of packages can be
uploaded to it with out regard to the presence or absence of
dependencies.
--
John Hasler
[hidden email]
Elmwood, WI USA

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable

Sven Hartge-5
John Hasler <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sven writes:

>> It is of note that "experimental" in itself is not a complete set of
>> packages like "unstable" is, it is intended as an addon to "unstable"
>> and has to be used in conjunction with it.

> It is also of note that Unstable is unstable in that it is constantly
> changing, not that it is full of buggy packages.  One of the ways in
> which it can be unstable is that new versions of packages can be
> uploaded to it with out regard to the presence or absence of
> dependencies.

The latter part is mitigated a bit when source-only uploads are used, as
those greatly reduce the impact of an unclean build-environment on the
DDs side.

But during library transitions "unstable" gets hit with this with the
full force, doing "apt dist-upgrade" blindly will see you remove the
major parts of your system quite easily.

You have to use your brain a bit when using "unstable".

Grüße,
Sven.

--
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.