https://lwn.net/Articles/229781/ This is a special feed containing comments posted to the individual LWN article titled "Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 updated". en-us Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:59:59 +0000 Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:59:59 +0000 https://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification lwn@lwn.net https://lwn.net/Articles/230382/ https://lwn.net/Articles/230382/ gjmarter It is understandable to want to have your system stay on the sarge release and not upgrade automatically (In which case you want your sources.list to point to sarge). You supplied one reason.<br> <p> It is also understandable that many people would want to run the currently supported stable distribution (in which case sources.list would point to stable). Sarge will have security support for a while but not forever. Stable is always supported.<br> <p> The Debian developers had to choose whether the default install of sarge would point the updates to sarge or to stable. I think they made the right choice be defaulting to stable. This way the default configuration will always get security updates even if the administrator never updates their sources.list. (Of course this requires that some action is taken to keep the system updated, but the point is that this action does not require changing sources.list.)<br> Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:16:47 +0000 https://lwn.net/Articles/230184/ https://lwn.net/Articles/230184/ Quazatron Am I the only one that finds it annoying that suddenly my Debian 3.1 systems want to upgrade 300 megabytes worth of packages?<br> If 3.1 is "Sarge" then it should be referred as such in sources.list to avoid unwanted distribution upgrades that can break your systems.<br> I can see the point of having a "stable" symlink to the latest stable distribution on Debian's FTP servers, but not on the system's sources.list.<br> Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:57:29 +0000