https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2024-47176, archive
As of 10/1/24 3:52 UTC time, Trixie/Debian testing does not have a fix for the severe cupsd security vulnerability that was recently announced, despite Debian Stable and Unstable having a fix.
Debian Testing is intended for testing, and not really for production usage.
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/cups-filters, archive
So the way Debian Unstable/Testing works is that packages go into unstable/ for a bit, and then are migrated into testing/trixie.
Issues preventing migration:
∙ ∙ Too young, only 3 of 5 days old
Basically, security vulnerabilities are not really a priority in testing, and everything waits for a bit before it updates.
I recently saw some people recommending Trixie for a "debian but not as unstable as sid and newer packages than stable", which is a pretty bad idea. Trixie/testing is not really intended for production use.
If you want newer, but still stable packages from the same repositories, then I recommend (not an exhaustive list, of course).:
- Opensuse Leap (Tumbleweed works too but secure boot was borked when I used it)
- Fedora
If you are willing to mix and match sources for packages:
- Flatpaks
- distrobox — run other distros in docker/podman containers and use apps through those
- Nix
Can get you newer packages on a more stable distros safely.
Yeah, using Testing directly is a bad idea. Instead pick a distro based on ~~Testing - like LMDE (Linux Mint Debian Edition);~~ or if you really need bleeding edge use Sid instead, but be aware that it was named after the child who breaks toys for a reason.
EDIT - as the comments say LMDE is based on Stable. In my defence when I used it it was still based on Testing. (And it was a rolling release. Yup, LMDE "1" times.)
Linux mint debian edition is not based on testijg, but rather on stable*.
This misconception may be caused by the fact that the latest debian stable, has newer packages than many of the older-but-not-ancient ubuntu releases, which were originally based off of debian sid.
*I cannot find a first party source for this, only third party
https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/13/linux_mint_debian_edition_hands_on/
I fixed it, based on info that you and @cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone provided. Thanks you both for pointing this out!
(The misconception is actually outdated info. LMDE 1 lasted a really long time, and it was Testing-based.)
I found info in the Linux Mint forums about this. Not quite first party source as it's just user discussion, but still closer.
Maybe it's just been good luck, or maybe I pay enough attention to what apt is going to do and know how to deal with it but I've been daily driving sid for years and am convinced it's more stable than arch based on friends I have that run arch...maybe it's just I'm more experienced but it really doesn't break that much. Obviously ymmv.
I think that it's partially due to Debian's focus on stability. If they call it "stable" it's rock solid; if they call it "unstable" it's still fairly usable, it's just the 0.1% odds that it'll evoke Cthulhu in the process.
In my Sid times I managed to break it, but to be fair it was more like a Frankendebian at that point.