Please point me to official documentation. Me as an end user, wiki.debian.org looks to be legit official documentation.
If a few internal people in Debian community consider it different, what is public published should highlight clear the facts, the truth and not be kept private between a few people. Is https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_debian_archive_basics table 2.2 official documentation? It states OPTIONAL. Should I interpret that optional is mandatory in Debian? It needs to be clearly explained in the documentation than. PS. The iso installer (not the net-installer) which I use for offline and airgapped installs, it gives the result I stated of packages strict from the release. If on some situations, there are problems after a release, and packages are pushed minutes after iso and cloud builds, I would expect an immediate correction and a release like 13.6.1 e planning the issues that break the 13.6 release. Enviado desde mi iPhone > El 26 ago 2026, a las 17:00, Chris Hofstaedtler <[email protected]> escribió: > > Hi, > > * Madalin Ignisca <[email protected]> [260826 16:19]: >> https://wiki.debian.org/StableUpdates >> >> It does not state that it is required either, and the wording suggests it is >> an opt-in to enable. > > The text on this page was written with technically- and historically-colored > glasses a long time ago. I've used the opportunity to update the text. > > In previous times, when we had a "volatile" suite, that was kinda opt-in. > > Presently, a Debian stable installation is supposed to have, and has by > default, three suites enabled, which are separate only due to technical and > administrative reasons on the Debian side: stable, stable-updates, and > stable-security. They are not opt-in. > >> If you do 13.6 exact release, does it means it should contain already >> packages that have been updated in stable-updates after the day of release? >> Because for cloud image this is what happened. > > This would be bad. Indeed in the past we had situations where there known > bugs in the packages in `stable` which got immediately fixed in > `stable-updates`, but it was too late to put the fix into `stable`. > > You really want `stable-updates` to be enabled, also at image building time. > >> Updates - proposed updates, not security, that are nice to have, an opt-in >> if you accept possible every day updates available. > > No, they are not "nice to have". > > Best, > Chris >
