[washingupliquid]

Maybe this is the kick in the ass Debian needs to upgrade the embarrassingly ancient dnsmasq in "stable" because while I can't think of any new features, the latest versions contain many non-CVE bug fixes.

But I doubt it, they will lazily backport these patches to create some frankenstein one-off version and be done with it.

Before anyone says "tHaT's wHaT sTaBlE iS fOr": they have literally shipped straight-up broken packages before, because fixing it would somehow make it not "stable". They would rather ship useless, broken code than something too new. It's crazy.

[zrm]

They're not going to put a newer version in stable. The way stable gets newer versions of things is that you get the newer version into testing and then every two years testing becomes stable and stable becomes oldstable, at which point the newer version from testing becomes the version in stable.

The thing to complain about is if the version in testing is ancient.

[wolttam]

Looks like the version in stable is 2.91, which was released within a couple months of trixie. It's not 'ancient' by any stretch.

FWIW the fixes referenced here are already fixed in trixie: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/d...

[braiamp]

Yeah was about to comment, parent says "if it is ancient", it is not. So the root comment is nothing burger. Stable has 1 release cycle old, and depending on how things play out, testing may have 2.93 or later anyways.

[PunchyHamster]

2.92 currently

[koverstreet]

No, that's exactly the thing to complain about.

That whole model dates to before automated testing was even really a thing, and no one knew how to do QA; your QA was all the people willing to run your code and report bugs, and that took time. Not to mention, you think the C of today is bad? Have you looked at old C?

And the disadvantage is that backporting is manual, resource intensive, and prone to error - and the projects that are the most heavily invested in that model are also the projects that are investing the least in writing tests and automated test infrastructure - because engineering time is a finite resource.

On top of that, the backport model heavily discourages the kinds of refactorings and architectural cleanups that would address bugs systemically and encourage a whack-a-mole approach - because in the backport model, people want fixes they can backport. And then things just get worse and worse.

We'd all be a lot better off if certain projects took some of the enthusiasm with which they throw outrageous engineering time at backports, and spent at least some of that on automated testing and converting to Rust.

[zrm]

> That whole model dates to before automated testing was even really a thing, and no one knew how to do QA; your QA was all the people willing to run your code and report bugs, and that took time.

That's not what it's about.

What it's about is, newer versions change things. A newer version of OpenSSH disables GSSAPI by default when an older version had it enabled. You don't want that as an automatic update because it will break in production for anyone who is actually using it. So instead the change goes into the testing release and the user discovers that in their test environment before rolling out the new release into production.

> On top of that, the backport model heavily discourages the kinds of refactorings and architectural cleanups that would address bugs systemically and encourage a whack-a-mole approach - because in the backport model, people want fixes they can backport.

They're not alternatives to each other. The stable release gets the backported patch, the next release gets the refactor.

But that's also why you want the stable release. The refactor is a larger change, so if it breaks something you want to find it in test rather than production.

[koverstreet]

You're going to have to update production at some point, and delaying it to once every 2 years is just deferred maintenance. And you know what they say about that...

So when you do update and get that GSSAPI change, it comes with two years worth of other updates - and tracking that down mixed in with everything else is going to be all kinds of fun.

And if you're two years out of the loop and it turns out upstream broke something fundamental, and you're just now finding out about it while they've moved on and maybe continued with a redesign, that's also going to be a fun conversation.

So if the backport model is expensive and error prone, and it exists to support something that maybe wasn't such a good idea in the first place... well, you may want something, but that doesn't make it smart.

[throw0101c]

> You're going to have to update production at some point, and delaying it to once every 2 years is just deferred maintenance. And you know what they say about that...

Updated what, specifically in production?

If you need a newer version of Python or Postgres or whatever it is possible to install it from third-party repos or compile from source yourself. But having a team of folks watch all the other code out there is a load off my plate: not worrying about libc, or OpenSSH, or OpenSSL, or zlib, or a thousand other dependencies. If I need the latest version for a particular service I would install that separately, but otherwise the whole point of a 'packagized' system is to let other folks worry about those things.

> So when you do update and get that GSSAPI change, it comes with two years worth of other updates - and tracking that down mixed in with everything else is going to be all kinds of fun.

I've done in-place upgrades of Debian from version 5 to 11 at my last job on many machines, never once re-installing from scratch, and they've all gone fine.

Further, when updates come down from the Debian repos I don't worry about applying them because I know there's not going to be weird changes in behaviour: I'm more confident in deploying things like security updates because the new .deb files have very focused changes.

[zrm]

There are two different kinds of updates.

One is security updates and bug fixes. These need to fix the problem with the smallest change to minimize the amount of possible breakage, because the code is already vulnerable/broken in production and needs to be updated right now. These are the updates stable gets.

The other is changes and additions. They're both more likely to break things and less important to move into production the same day they become public.

You don't have to wait until testing is released as stable to run it in your test environment. You can find out about the changes the next release will have immediately, in the test environment, and thereby have plenty of time to address any issues before those changes move into production.

[washingupliquid]

> One is security updates and bug fixes.

That's where you're wrong. They're not one and the same.

Debian stable often defers non-security bug fixes for up to two years by playing this game.

I'm not interested in new features unless they make things actually work.

Debian stable time and again favors broken over new. Broken kernels, broken packages. At least they're stable in their brokenness.

Hence my complaint.

[koverstreet]

You definitely need different channels for high priority fixes and normal releases, stable and testing releases and all that.

But two years is impractical and Debian gets a ton of friction over it. Web browsers and maybe one or two other packages are able to carve out exceptions, because those packages are big enough for the rules to bend and no one can argue with a straight face that Debian is going to somehow muster up the manpower to do backports right.

But for everyone else who has to deal with Debian shipping ancient dependencies or upstream package maintainers who are expected to deal with bug reports from ancient versions is expected to just suck it up, because no one else is big enough and organized enough to say "hey, it's 2026, we have better ways and this has gotten nutty".

Maybe the new influx of LLM discovered security vulnerabilities will start to change the conversation, I'm curious how it'll play out.

[dagenix]

If you don't like the debian model, didn't use debian. There are people that like the debian model, it seems like you aren't one of them, though. That doesn't make them wrong.

[toast0]

> You're going to have to update production at some point, and delaying it to once every 2 years is just deferred maintenance. And you know what they say about that...

Doing terrible work every 2 years is better than doing it every day?

[dwattttt]

I've brought this up with leap second adjustments; a process you do once every two years is one you'll never get good at. If you want them to go smoothly, do them monthly.

LetsEncrypt has been a great example of this in certificate management.

[vel0city]

Personally I'd rather have a manageable stream of little bad things consistently over time rather than suddenly having a mountain of bad things one day.

[cesarb]

> Doing terrible work every 2 years is better than doing it every day?

And by skipping some releases, you will have less of that work. When something is changed in one release, then changed again on the next one, by waiting you only have to do the change once, instead of twice. And sometimes you don't even have to do anything, when something is introduced in one release and reverted in the next one.

[PunchyHamster]

Get thru the issues once every 2 years is entirely fine. Farther than that and you get problems. We do that for ~500 systems of very varied use. I wouldn't want to do it yearly (or dread on rolling release) but I also wouldn't want to do it any less often coz of issues you mentioned.

> And if you're two years out of the loop and it turns out upstream broke something fundamental, and you're just now finding out about it while they've moved on and maybe continued with a redesign, that's also going to be a fun conversation.

Having that sprung on you because you decided to run everything on latest is worse.

"Oh we have CVE, we now need to uproot everything because new version that fixes it also changed shit"

With release every year or two you can *plan* for it. You are not forced into it as with "rolling" releases because with rolling you NEED to take in new features together with bugfixes, but with Debian-like release cycle you can do it system by system when new version comes up and the "old" one still gets security fixes so you're not instantly screwed.

> So if the backport model is expensive and error prone, and it exists to support something that maybe wasn't such a good idea in the first place... well, you may want something, but that doesn't make it smart.

It exists in that format because people are running businesses bigger than "a man with a webpage deployed off master every few days"

[zie]

Clearly you disagree with the debian stable perspective. That's fine, it's not for everyone. You can just run debian unstable or debian testing, depending on where exactly you draw the line.

If you want the rolling release like distro, just run debian unstable. That's what you get. It's on par with all the other constantly updated distros out there. Or just run one of those.

Also, Debian stable has a lifetime a lot longer than 2 years, see https://www.debian.org/releases/. Some of us need distros like stable, because we are in giant orgs that are overworked and have long release cycles. Our users want stuff to "just work" and stable promises if X worked at release, it will keep working until we stop support. You don't add new features to a stable release.

From a personal perspective: Debian Stable is for your grandparents or young children. You install Stable, turn on auto-update and every 5-ish years you spend a day upgrading them to the next stable release. Then you spend a week or two helping them through all the new changes and then you have minimal support calls from them for 5-ish years. If you handed them a rolling release or Debian unstable, you'd have constant support calls.

[ryandrake]

...or just leave grandparents on the previous version of Stable until they get a new computer. Honestly not a huge fan of upgrading software at all, if I'm the one supporting the machines.

[orf]

> You don't want that as an automatic update because it will break in production for anyone who is actually using it

The problem with this take is that it’s stuck in the early 2000’s, where all servers are pets to be cared for and lovingly updated in place.

It’s also circular: you have the same problem with the current model if you don’t have a test environment. And if you do have a test environment, releases can be tested and validated at a much higher cadence.

[washingupliquid]

> What it's about is, newer versions change things. A newer version of OpenSSH disables GSSAPI by default when an older version had it enabled.

Debian patches defaults in OpenSSH code so it behaves differently than upstream.

They shouldn't legally be allowed to call it OpenSSH, let alone lecture people about it.

Let them call their fork DebSSH, like they have to do with "IceWeasel" and all the other nonsense they mire themselves into.

When you break software to the point you change how it behaves you shouldn't be allowed to use the same name.

[b112]

It's called open source. People are allowed to compile it as they wish. That's part of the positive, and doing so doesn't mean anything is broken.

[nsvd2]

There are bleeding edge and rolling release distributions. Debian is simply not that and has no desire to be.

[jeroenhd]

If you want that, you don't want Debian. Other people do.

Some people will even run Debian on the desktop. I would never, but some people get real upset when anything changes.

Debian does regularly bring newer versions of software: they release about every two years. If you want the latest and greatest Debian experience, upgrade Debian on week one.

From your description, you seem to want Arch but made by Debian?

[jampekka]

> From your description, you seem to want Arch but made by Debian?

Isn't that essentially Debian unstable (with potentially experimental enabled)? I've been running Debian unstable on my desktops for something like 20 years.

[koverstreet]

Well, my workstation runs Debian sid, and all the newer stuff runs NixOS...

But that does nothing for people who write and support code Debian wants to ship - packaging code badly can create a real mess for upstream.

[kiney]

I run Debian on desktop and laptops. Because I want stable versions with only security backports

[PunchyHamster]

Debian Testing works just fine on desktop and it is up to date enough to not really be an issue.

And despise the name is probably more stable than vast majority of rolling release distros

[rlpb]

Refactoring and rewrites prove time and time again that they also introduce new bugs and changes in behaviour that users of stable releases do not want.

For what you want, there are other distributions for that. Debian also has stable-backports that does what you want.

No need to rage on distributions that also provide exactly what their users want.

[PunchyHamster]

> That whole model dates to before automated testing was even really a thing, and no one knew how to do QA; your QA was all the people willing to run your code and report bugs, and that took time. Not to mention, you think the C of today is bad? Have you looked at old C

The automatically tested Debian release is called Debian Testing. And it is stable enough.

Debian Stable is basically "we target particular release with our dependencies instead of requiring customer to update entire system together with our software". That model works just fine as long as you don't go too far back.

> On top of that, the backport model heavily discourages the kinds of refactorings and architectural cleanups that would address bugs systemically and encourage a whack-a-mole approach - because in the backport model, people want fixes they can backport. And then things just get worse and worse.

Narrator: It turned out things were not getting worse, they were just fine.

> We'd all be a lot better off if certain projects took some of the enthusiasm with which they throw outrageous engineering time at backports, and spent at least some of that on automated testing and converting to Rust.

That project is RedHat, not Debian, they backport entire features back to old versions (together with bugs!)

[e12e]

How do you do QA without locking a set of features?

[bluGill]

You have far too much faith in automated testing.

Don't get me wrong, I use and encourage extensive automated testing. However only extensive manual testing by people looking for things that are "weird" can really find all bugs. (though it remains to be seen what AI can do - I'm not holding my breath)

[koverstreet]

100% - but that's where writing regression tests when people find things really helps with the stress levels of future-you :)

[fulafel]

Close: New versions go in unstable where development happens, testing is where things go to marinate for a while.

[ploxiln]

You don't have to use Debian stable, if you'd prefer Ubuntu every 6 months, or Fedora (6 months? 9 months?), or even Arch Linux updated daily ...

I use Arch on my laptop, when I got it 2 years ago the amd gpu was a bit new so it was prudent to get the latest kernel, mesa, everything. Since I use it daily it's not bad to update weekly and keep on top of occasional config migrations.

I use Debian stable on my home server, it's been in-place upgraded 4-ish times over 10 years. I can install weekly updates without worrying about config updates and such. I set up most stuff I wanted many years ago, and haven't really wanted new features since, though I have installed tailscale and jellyfin from their separate debian package repos so they are very current. It does the same jobs I wanted it to do 8 years ago, with super low maintenance.

But if you don't want Debian stable, that's fine. Just let others enjoy it.

[TacticalCoder]

    https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-2291
    https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-4890
    https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-4891
    https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-4892
    https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-4893
    https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-5172

fixed, fixed, fixed, fixed, fixed and fixed

[wolttam]

I dunno, 2.92 seems to bring in some new features and changes that would not typically be brought into a stable release: https://thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/CHANGELOG

[asveikau]

You can always ask the Debian project for your money back.

[lutoma]

For what it's worth, Debian had a security update for dnsmasq yesterday, presumably to address this.

[ExoticPearTree]

About a decade ago I switched to Ubuntu LTS because of Debian’s “policy?” of having pretty old packages in “stable” and a long release cycles.

Nowadays, even with Ubuntu’s two year or so release cycle I have to use 3rd party packages to have up to date software (PHP being one) and not some version from three years ago.

We no longer live in a world (with few exceptions) where running a 3-5 year old distribution (still supported) makes sense.

[LtWorf]

I am running debian oldstable on two rpi-based appliances i built at home. They have been working fine for several years.

I'll have to update them because eventually security updates will stop. That means that the python code on them no longer works on current python versions, C++ needs some tweaks because some library changed API.

Better to do these things every few years than every 6 months for no reason whatsoever.

[ExoticPearTree]

> That means that the python code on them no longer works on current python versions, C++ needs some tweaks because some library changed API.

And this is why you update often, to keep up with the programming language ecosystem too. I have seen way too many times software unmaintained for years and then when it was actually time to upgrade it would take much more time to bring it to current framework versions than it would have taken if it was updated regularly throughout the years.

And I was not referring to hobby projects you do at home.

[LtWorf]

> And this is why you update often

Updating often would mean waste time every year rather than every 6 years. Do we agree that 6 > 1?

At work they pay me so I'm there no matter what, but it's still a cost for the company to have me do that rather than something useful.

[BrandoElFollito]

It depends on how you look at it. I use Debian stable in the smallet possible configuration because it is, well, stable. A rock on which I put docker to run actually useful services, which are upaded the way I want.

If I was to run dnsmasq on Debian, it would be in a container. Since I run Pihole (in a container), it kinda is.

[afarviral]

What if the new release which contains the fixes has new dependencies and those also have new dependencies? I assume they have to Frankenstein packages sometimes to maintain the borders of the target app while still having major vulns patched right in stable.

[LtWorf]

Nice troll fake account :)

And no "good faith" assumption here, since you literally claim debian stable ships broken kernels, according to you nobody should be able to even boot a computer.

[lmm]

That's what stable is for though. Like, sure, stable's policy is ludicrous and you would have to be insane to run stable. But the remedy for that isn't to try to change Debian policy, it's to get people to stop running stable. Maybe once no-one uses it Debian will see sense.

[LtWorf]

Yep, let's all use libraries that change API every day instead. That will be more productive.

[lmm]

The only thing worse than changing APIs is never changing APIs. Having to use APIs from 5 years ago sucks.

[LtWorf]

Having to modify a software every few months when it could be left untouched for 5 years and keep running sucks way more :)

Not every software needs updates, and if it doesn't, just using the new name for the API all the time is useless churn.

I'm starting to appreciate java, where all my software written for java5 still works fine without a single change.

[PunchyHamster]

whatever you're on, stop, it's not making your brain any better

[LtWorf]

> they have literally shipped straight-up broken packages before

And did you open a high severity bug or you just kept it to yourself until you came here to complain years after the fact?

[rlpb]

> ...they have literally shipped straight-up broken packages before, because fixing it would somehow make it not "stable"

Irrelevant strawman, since you're not accusing the dnsmasq package in Debian stable of being straight-up broken.