Re: Question re Debian versions
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:06:30PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: Michael D Schleif [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004:03:18:20:05:40-0800] scribed: Your best bet if you don't want to reinstall is watch closely after sarge goes stable for a new unstable fork off to testing, and move when they fork. How, exactly, does one go about ``watch closely ... for a new unstable fork off to testing'' ??? I've seen reference to this, but I do not know how one can know when that situation obtains. After sarge goes stable, a couple months after that a new testing branch will fork off of unstable. Not a couple of months; immediately. Actually, it won't fork off unstable either; it'll start as a copy of stable and progress smoothly on from there taking packages from unstable as they're ready, the same way it did last time. Sometime before Dec 31, 2003 if people get moving on it was the last I heard. 2003? The last time people were trying to put a date on the release said Dec 31, 2003. Only correct if you don't read between the lines on -devel-announce. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/03/msg00026.html It's true that I (quite deliberately) didn't put an explicit date on that to avoid getting quoted too widely on Slashdot or whatever and being held to the date, and that the social contract stuff has at best pushed it back by a month or two; but anyone reading the message should be able to work out what it meant. Cheers, -- Colin Watson, Debian Release Assistant [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
If I understand this correctly, users of 'testing' (currently 'sarge') can do *nothing* when new security problems arise? They must wait for the fix in 'unstable' to make it into testing. pj You knew going in that the only safe path is stable, you were pj warned! Certainly! ;-) I still think my new installs should be 'testing'/'sarge'. Two reasons: I believe that the contents of the current 'testing' are pretty solid/safe. Plus, once 'sarge' becomes the new 'stable' (even though I know that's a future, uncertain target) , I'll be OK. Thanks for your comments! -Kenneth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
* Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004:03:18:20:05:40-0800] scribed: snip / Not particularly. I've never downgraded libc successfully on a machine across major version changes without having to reinstall. Your best bet if you don't want to reinstall is watch closely after sarge goes stable for a new unstable fork off to testing, and move when they fork. How, exactly, does one go about ``watch closely ... for a new unstable fork off to testing'' ??? I've seen reference to this, but I do not know how one can know when that situation obtains. snip / Sometime before Dec 31, 2003 if people get moving on it was the last I heard. snip / 2003? -- Best Regards, mds mds resource 877.596.8237 - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question re Debian versions
* Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004:03:18:22:58:47-0800] scribed: snip / My opinion is that testing should not be publicly available until it is in the release candidate or beta stage, or whatever you want to call it. Up until that point, it should be a virtual distribution only existing in the output of the testing scripts. I think it does a disservice to the community to have a publicly available distribution that appears to be a compromise in between stable and unstable, but in actuality can be much more broken than unstable. How could that work? Can apt/dselect be coerced into understanding this distinction? As it is, if testing is in my sources.list, won't I get whatever is in testing, so long as I ask for testing packages? Or, is there some way to ask for mature testing packages, as opposed to else? What do you think? -- Best Regards, mds mds resource 877.596.8237 - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question re Debian versions
Michael D Schleif [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004:03:18:20:05:40-0800] scribed: snip / Not particularly. I've never downgraded libc successfully on a machine across major version changes without having to reinstall. Your best bet if you don't want to reinstall is watch closely after sarge goes stable for a new unstable fork off to testing, and move when they fork. How, exactly, does one go about ``watch closely ... for a new unstable fork off to testing'' ??? I've seen reference to this, but I do not know how one can know when that situation obtains. After sarge goes stable, a couple months after that a new testing branch will fork off of unstable. snip / Sometime before Dec 31, 2003 if people get moving on it was the last I heard. snip / 2003? The last time people were trying to put a date on the release said Dec 31, 2003. -- Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux. You can find a worse OS, but it costs more. pgpbjmlgZQm6i.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question re Debian versions
myh On 2004-03-19, Monique Y. Herman wrote: myh myh Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for myh stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using myh testing distributions must wait the allotted amount of time myh before receiving the unstable update in testing. How long of a wait? If I understand this correctly, users of 'testing' (currently 'sarge') can do *nothing* when new security problems arise? They must wait for the fix in 'unstable' to make it into testing. Sounds like 'testing' contains a window during which bad people could do bad things ... Thanks for any further clarifications! -- Prof Kenneth H Jacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Science Dept www.cs.appstate.edu/~khj Appalachian State Univ Boone, NC 28608 USA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:32:59AM -0400, Kenneth Jacker wrote: myh On 2004-03-19, Monique Y. Herman wrote: myh Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for myh stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using myh testing distributions must wait the allotted amount of time myh before receiving the unstable update in testing. How long of a wait? If I understand this correctly, users of 'testing' (currently 'sarge') can do *nothing* when new security problems arise? They must wait for the fix in 'unstable' to make it into testing. Sounds like 'testing' contains a window during which bad people could do bad things ... Yup. Unfortunately, we can't do anything about this until a team turns up to do security updates for testing, which is a hard and time-consuming job. http://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
Kenneth Jacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myh On 2004-03-19, Monique Y. Herman wrote: myh myh Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for myh stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using myh testing distributions must wait the allotted amount of time myh before receiving the unstable update in testing. How long of a wait? If I understand this correctly, users of 'testing' (currently 'sarge') can do *nothing* when new security problems arise? They must wait for the fix in 'unstable' to make it into testing. Well, that's because you're not running (possibly nonfunctional) sid or safe-and-maintained stable. You knew going in that the only safe path is stable, you were warned! -- Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux. You can find a worse OS, but it costs more. pgptbokrkKEHX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question re Debian versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 19 March 2004 18:17, Monique Y. Herman wrote: I wasn't claiming that unstable is a better choice than stable for, er, stability; I was claiming it was a better choice than testing. I understood you, but I asked the original question. I think that I had it more in context. I believe the discussion moved on to how things work. I've found that extremely helpful, too. I needed to know how the versions progressed in Debian, too. Thanks to all of you who helped with this. I appreciate it much. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAXFhqjeziQOokQnARAtbmAJ999mJte0EM3GCCY9ovKobJsvpCkwCgr/MP 22K6g6bC21sIVLNI38Ms61o= =4cl6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Question re Debian versions
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 03:31:38PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote.. However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing works well right now since we're near a release and almost everything in there is in a releasable state, but after sarge releases, watch out. Presently these two lines accomplish the same thing: deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ sarge main non-free contrib Once Sarge releases, will the line with sarge automatically mean I'm running a Stable box again (while today it is considered a Testing box)? This may seem elementary, but I haven't been through a release cycle yet with Debian, so just want to make sure I understand this. Thanks Kevin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
Hello Kevin! On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 07:44:46AM -0500, Kevin Coyner wrote: Presently these two lines accomplish the same thing: deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ sarge main non-free contrib Once Sarge releases, will the line with sarge automatically mean I'm running a Stable box again (while today it is considered a Testing box)? That's right. And once the release after Sarge comes out the box will be running oldstable. Stick to the release names (Woody, Sarge, ...) if you want to track a certain Debian flavor over the release cycle from testing to stable, and stick to 'stable' and 'testing' if you want to keep tracking this particular release while other named releases go by. Please note that Sid is an exception here, Sid will always be and stay unstable. Cheers, Flo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question re Debian versions
On 2004-03-19, Paul Johnson penned: Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] Unstable is where bug fixes, new packages, etc are first introduced into a debian distribution. (There's also something called experimental, but that's not a proper distribution.) The important ones, like security updates, make it down pretty quickly. Say you have package A that makes it past unstable and into testing. Then someone finds a bug in package A. It turns out to be an icky bug, and it takes quite a while to fix it. The bug will be fixed in unstable before trickling down into testing. And in unstable, a package can be broken for months. It's really not for people who aren't ready to work for it at times. Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using testing distributions must wait the allotted amount of time before receiving the unstable update in testing. If you're in a spot where security is absolutely critical, you should only be using stable anyway. I wasn't claiming that unstable is a better choice than stable for, er, stability; I was claiming it was a better choice than testing. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
On 2004-03-19, Travis Crump penned: Unstable, on the other hand, breaks much more spectacularly on package installation with no warning other than people moaning on the lists/IRC/BTS. I don't want to imply that this is a frequent occurence, but it does happen... I've only been bitten in major ways a couple of times by this over several years. The one I recall is when I suddenly couldn't run X. The recent incorporation of the list bugs functionality into the apt system has made things a lot easier, though. I've been considering writing a script that only updates packages whose .deb files have been sitting on my machine for a week. In theory, that's enough time for someone else to have felt the pain ... -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question re Debian versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've been Distro hopping for the last few weeks and am very impressed with the Debian system. It's probably going to become the distro on all my machines very shortly. I'm going to be running Woody on one machine and Sarge on another for testing purposes. From what I'm reading, it's probably not that far off that Sarge becomes the stable version (I *THINK* I'm understanding how it works), Sid becomes the testing version, and there will be a new unstable version (please correct me if I misunderstand). Sometime after that, I'll want to upgrade from Woody to Sarge on my base machine; a few months after that, I'll consider moving my test machine to Sid. What is the procedure for this type of an upgrade? IOW, what commands would be given to apt to move the machine to the next version? Thanks in advance - ---Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAWgILjeziQOokQnARAq2PAKCHfbMPaVQvg5x6sIq8U1L02f6KRQCeIJ+7 NCtKENEkHXE6A6U4QdLfx9s= =b5gw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Question re Debian versions
Michael Satterwhite [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is the procedure for this type of an upgrade? IOW, what commands would be given to apt to move the machine to the next version? Had you searched the archives, you would not have had to wait for me to tell you to update your sources.list to include the newer version you want, then apt-get update apt-get dist-upgrade as root. -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question re Debian versions
On 2004-03-18, Michael Satterwhite penned: I've been Distro hopping for the last few weeks and am very impressed with the Debian system. It's probably going to become the distro on all my machines very shortly. I'm going to be running Woody on one machine and Sarge on another for testing purposes. From what I'm reading, it's probably not that far off that Sarge becomes the stable version (I *THINK* I'm understanding how it works), Sid becomes the testing version, and there will be a new unstable version (please correct me if I misunderstand). Sometime after that, I'll want to upgrade from Woody to Sarge on my base machine; a few months after that, I'll consider moving my test machine to Sid. I'm no expert, but I think this is not quite right. At the moment, Woody = stable, Sarge = testing, and Sid = unstable. *my understanding* is that, after Sarge becomes stable, it will look like this: Sarge = stable, ??? = testing, Sid = unstable In other words, I think Sid will remain the cutting edge distro of the debian system. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!) What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine? The testing distro is a little odd in that it's really intended for developers, not users. It's the stuff they're working on for the next release of stable, not necessarily the stuff that's more stable than unstable but newer than stable. This is a subtle but important difference. For example, security updates will make it into testing *after* they make it into both unstable and stable. What is the procedure for this type of an upgrade? IOW, what commands would be given to apt to move the machine to the next version? Make sure your system is up to date relative to your current distro, then read: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-apt-get.en.html#s-dist-upgrade -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sometime after that, I'll want to upgrade from Woody to Sarge on my base machine; a few months after that, I'll consider moving my test machine to Sid. I'm no expert, but I think this is not quite right. At the moment, Woody = stable, Sarge = testing, and Sid = unstable. *my understanding* is that, after Sarge becomes stable, it will look like this: Sarge = stable, ??? = testing, Sid = unstable In other words, I think Sid will remain the cutting edge distro of the debian system. That's right, though I wish it wasn't. It used to be if you wanted to stay on the cutting edge, you could set your sources.list to unstable, and you'd track that. If you decided you wanted to drop away from unstable, you change your sources.list to the codename, in which you'd automatically get moved to testing, frozen, stable and old as that version worked it's way down. -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question re Debian versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote: What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine? The testing distro is a little odd in that it's really intended for developers, not users. It's the stuff they're working on for the next release of stable, not necessarily the stuff that's more stable than unstable but newer than stable. This is a subtle but important difference. For example, security updates will make it into testing *after* they make it into both unstable and stable. I do development on the machine running Sarge. The package list in the stable list gets a bit dated for me. They, however, are perfect for the machine that *HAS* to be up and stable. I don't want that machine anywhere near the cutting edge. What is the procedure for this type of an upgrade? IOW, what commands would be given to apt to move the machine to the next version? Make sure your system is up to date relative to your current distro, then read: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-apt-get.en.html#s-dist-upgra de Thanks much. I really do appreciate the info. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAWilqjeziQOokQnARAoeYAJ9CgCFNTiny+6dy27PILrwm3znKmACdGmT0 y0kZkZZ3TV6eGA3EC99clbc= =qzo+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Question re Debian versions
On 2004-03-18, Michael Satterwhite penned: On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote: What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine? The testing distro is a little odd in that it's really intended for developers, not users. It's the stuff they're working on for the next release of stable, not necessarily the stuff that's more stable than unstable but newer than stable. This is a subtle but important difference. For example, security updates will make it into testing *after* they make it into both unstable and stable. I do development on the machine running Sarge. The package list in the stable list gets a bit dated for me. They, however, are perfect for the machine that *HAS* to be up and stable. I don't want that machine anywhere near the cutting edge. *nod* If I were you, I believe I would choose unstable, not testing, on my development box. But that's just me. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:03, Monique Y. Herman wrote: I do development on the machine running Sarge. The package list in the stable list gets a bit dated for me. They, however, are perfect for the machine that *HAS* to be up and stable. I don't want that machine anywhere near the cutting edge. *nod* If I were you, I believe I would choose unstable, not testing, on my development box. But that's just me. Eventually, I probably will. I'm new to the Debian distro, though and a little gunshy over the word unstable. As a newcomer, though, I really like what I see. The maintainers have done an incredibly good job. FWIW: Debian has the reputation of being difficult to install and easy to maintain. I found the new Installer at least as easy to use as the installer in SuSE. One test I like to run is to try to run a program without looking at the documentation. It's a good way to see how intuitive the program is (it's only a test ... I do go back and read the documentation and rerun things to get them right). I found the Installer very intuitive. I only found a couple of places that I thought it was counter-intuitive, and they were fixed in the latest release. Now, it's easy to install as well as easy to maintain. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAWjOgjeziQOokQnARAih5AKCfgxQTrbGNBbpko/ijZY2jW4RWIACggURB PS+KmpYxKEQTJWg5T7Zlnr0= =1tWg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Question re Debian versions
Michael Satterwhite [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote: What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine? The testing distro is a little odd in that it's really intended for developers, not users. It's the stuff they're working on for the next release of stable, not necessarily the stuff that's more stable than unstable but newer than stable. This is a subtle but important difference. For example, security updates will make it into testing *after* they make it into both unstable and stable. I do development on the machine running Sarge. The package list in the stable list gets a bit dated for me. They, however, are perfect for the machine that *HAS* to be up and stable. I don't want that machine anywhere near the cutting edge. However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing works well right now since we're near a release and almost everything in there is in a releasable state, but after sarge releases, watch out. -- You win again, gravity! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote: Michael Satterwhite [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote: What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine? The testing distro is a little odd in that it's really intended for developers, not users. It's the stuff they're working on for the next release of stable, not necessarily the stuff that's more stable than unstable but newer than stable. This is a subtle but important difference. For example, security updates will make it into testing *after* they make it into both unstable and stable. I do development on the machine running Sarge. The package list in the stable list gets a bit dated for me. They, however, are perfect for the machine that *HAS* to be up and stable. I don't want that machine anywhere near the cutting edge. However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing works well right now since we're near a release and almost everything in there is in a releasable state, but after sarge releases, watch out. I'm sure I'm missing something here. I would expect that the Testing version becomes more unstable after the current Sid becomes the Testing version (which is why I wouldn't update from Sarge to ??? for a few months). But are you *REALLY* saying that the new Testing version will be more unstable than the new Unstable version?? Something seems wrong with that picture. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAWjwmjeziQOokQnARAiY/AJ4rT4z+38FsEPm1DUX2p0QhOCduigCgoNTo EZuCQJKsYrA9VJsKA9ecSLU= =zaSc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Question re Debian versions
On 2004-03-19, Michael Satterwhite penned: On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote: However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing works well right now since we're near a release and almost everything in there is in a releasable state, but after sarge releases, watch out. I'm sure I'm missing something here. I would expect that the Testing version becomes more unstable after the current Sid becomes the Testing version (which is why I wouldn't update from Sarge to ??? for a few months). But are you *REALLY* saying that the new Testing version will be more unstable than the new Unstable version?? Something seems wrong with that picture. I'm not sure that less stable is the right term, but less usable almost certainly is. What I was trying to get across in my earlier post was exactly what Brian just said. Unstable is where bug fixes, new packages, etc are first introduced into a debian distribution. (There's also something called experimental, but that's not a proper distribution.) Testing is really candidate distribution for promotion to stable. Let me give an example that hopefully will make things more clear than what I just typed. Say you have package A that makes it past unstable and into testing. Then someone finds a bug in package A. It turns out to be an icky bug, and it takes quite a while to fix it. The bug will be fixed in unstable before trickling down into testing. Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using testing distributions must wait the allotted amount of time before receiving the unstable update in testing. It is true that packages go from experimental (not a distribution) to unstable to testing to stable. It is not true that stability/usability increases as you go from unstable to testing to stable. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 18 March 2004 18:35, Monique Y. Herman wrote: Say you have package A that makes it past unstable and into testing. Then someone finds a bug in package A. It turns out to be an icky bug, and it takes quite a while to fix it. The bug will be fixed in unstable before trickling down into testing. Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using testing distributions must wait the allotted amount of time before receiving the unstable update in testing. It is true that packages go from experimental (not a distribution) to unstable to testing to stable. It is not true that stability/usability increases as you go from unstable to testing to stable. Interesting. Thanks for the explanation. When I do change from Sarge on my dev. machine, I may go to unstable ... or make it a mixed machine. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAWkwXjeziQOokQnARAt6HAJ40dTuuizcouB5s862ZEOL11G0VbACgr+bW 51lCvhzem9Dk4Q9M+SCcZ5Y= =Yby0 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Question re Debian versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2004-03-19, Michael Satterwhite penned: On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote: However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing works well right now since we're near a release and almost everything in there is in a releasable state, but after sarge releases, watch out. I'm sure I'm missing something here. I would expect that the Testing version becomes more unstable after the current Sid becomes the Testing version (which is why I wouldn't update from Sarge to ??? for a few months). But are you *REALLY* saying that the new Testing version will be more unstable than the new Unstable version?? Something seems wrong with that picture. I'm not sure that less stable is the right term, but less usable almost certainly is. backports.org is your friend. Unstable is where bug fixes, new packages, etc are first introduced into a debian distribution. (There's also something called experimental, but that's not a proper distribution.) The important ones, like security updates, make it down pretty quickly. Say you have package A that makes it past unstable and into testing. Then someone finds a bug in package A. It turns out to be an icky bug, and it takes quite a while to fix it. The bug will be fixed in unstable before trickling down into testing. And in unstable, a package can be broken for months. It's really not for people who aren't ready to work for it at times. Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using testing distributions must wait the allotted amount of time before receiving the unstable update in testing. If you're in a spot where security is absolutely critical, you should only be using stable anyway. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAWlx7UzgNqloQMwcRAgg1AJ9Jqio4HuOP0dQndXLB/WXWhXQaRwCdGXjK y5QkJscWJ74/adJ3KhzqdnA= =CzV7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
On Thursday 18 March 2004 21:35, Paul Johnson wrote: Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not sure that less stable is the right term, but less usable almost certainly is. backports.org is your friend. Here's a question for the more experienced folks: is downgrading from unstable to stable as easy as upgrading is? Several months back, I decided to move up to unstable, because there were some things I was using from testing to get more recent versions, and that was causing problems as increasing numbers of dependencies were also coming from testing, and I'd heard about testing not getting security fixes quickly. At the time, I hadn't heard of backports.org... so I decided to upgrade my system to unstable. For the most part, it's worked okay, except for a couple of times when I'd upgrade things and something important would stop working... but I'm not sure any more that I'm really that comfortable on the bleeding edge. I *can* fix things -- I'm a Unix sysadmin in my day job -- but honestly, after spending all day fixing *other* people's computer problems, I want a system that just works at home. I know that at worst, I could back up /home and reinstall Woody, but I'd rather not have to redo some of the custom configuration I've done. Thus my question. Alternatively, how soon is Sarge going to become stable? I suppose another way to do it would be to switch my sources.list to point to Sarge and see if that would work -- I'd think that that would be an easier downgrade. Then when Sarge becomes stable, I could switch my sources.list to point to stable, and start using backports.org for things I decide I want a more recent version of... Thoughts? Suggestions? -- |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me. |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Travis Casey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 18 March 2004 21:35, Paul Johnson wrote: Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not sure that less stable is the right term, but less usable almost certainly is. backports.org is your friend. Here's a question for the more experienced folks: is downgrading from unstable to stable as easy as upgrading is? Not particularly. I've never downgraded libc successfully on a machine across major version changes without having to reinstall. Your best bet if you don't want to reinstall is watch closely after sarge goes stable for a new unstable fork off to testing, and move when they fork. For the most part, it's worked okay, except for a couple of times when I'd upgrade things and something important would stop working... but I'm not sure any more that I'm really that comfortable on the bleeding edge. I *can* fix things -- I'm a Unix sysadmin in my day job -- but honestly, after spending all day fixing *other* people's computer problems, I want a system that just works at home. Stable with backports.org updates of key items would probably be to your liking, then. Alternatively, how soon is Sarge going to become stable? Sometime before Dec 31, 2003 if people get moving on it was the last I heard. I know the right answer is someplace on the website, if you find it, post it. I suppose another way to do it would be to switch my sources.list to point to Sarge and see if that would work -- I'd think that that would be an easier downgrade. Then when Sarge becomes stable, I could switch my sources.list to point to stable, and start using backports.org for things I decide I want a more recent version of... That's another viable solution, but it'll take more work than your back up /home and reinstall woody plan, I imagine. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAWnHmUzgNqloQMwcRAtbkAJ9bGmJzcqGsCjceQ+sFTTSIZQvchACgnA5z vZRRUvrp6dri0w8Wfib2O3I= =A150 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
Michael Satterwhite wrote: On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote: However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing works well right now since we're near a release and almost everything in there is in a releasable state, but after sarge releases, watch out. I'm sure I'm missing something here. I would expect that the Testing version becomes more unstable after the current Sid becomes the Testing version (which is why I wouldn't update from Sarge to ??? for a few months). Just to clarify, this never happens. The same progression rules from sid-testing that occur now are always in effect. There is never a day when every package in sid gets into testing. When sarge releases, it will be identical to testing for a day or two and then testing will slowly change. But are you *REALLY* saying that the new Testing version will be more unstable than the new Unstable version?? Something seems wrong with that picture. I use testing and am perfectly happy with it. It does require a certain degree of acumen to know when to pull certain packages from unstable and when to sit tight and not do anything, but you get used to it[ie late last year I had GNOME on hold for a long time until the 1.4-2.x transition finished]. In my experience, testing breaks in one of two ways: Something is uninstallable because dependencies are screwy, because something was forced into testing ora package has been removed from testing. Once you have everything installed, this can't be a problem since an installed package by definition can't be uninstallable. A corollary to this is that an upgrade will try to remove packages, so don't do the upgrade. In other words you are given ample warning of the 'breakage'. The other problem is security and other 'critical' fixes, well worst comes to worst you can always grab the packages from unstable[either recompile/or install the unstable dependencies as well] so in this regard testing can't be worse than unstable. Unstable, on the other hand, breaks much more spectacularly on package installation with no warning other than people moaning on the lists/IRC/BTS. I don't want to imply that this is a frequent occurence, but it does happen... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question re Debian versions
Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Say you have package A that makes it past unstable and into testing. Then someone finds a bug in package A. It turns out to be an icky bug, and it takes quite a while to fix it. The bug will be fixed in unstable before trickling down into testing. Actually, the real problem with running testing is that the dependency graph involving the 13,000 or so packages in unstable is so complicated that enough bugs can crop up (especially during transitions) that nearly the entirely distribution blocks itself from entirely testing (because a bug in one package is holding back another package, which in turn is held back by another bug, etc.). In this situation, it becomes computationally impossible for the testing scripts to unlock it. To work around this problem, the testing release manager will manually force the more critical packages into testing from time to time, intentionally causing major breakage in a lot of other packages. Then, the rest of the packages will be allowed to trickle as an normal, which can still take several weeks. Thus, many packages can be broken for quite a while. My opinion is that testing should not be publicly available until it is in the release candidate or beta stage, or whatever you want to call it. Up until that point, it should be a virtual distribution only existing in the output of the testing scripts. I think it does a disservice to the community to have a publicly available distribution that appears to be a compromise in between stable and unstable, but in actuality can be much more broken than unstable. It's also a real pain for maintainers because we get many bug reports from testing users that, although are valid, are completely unfixable by maintainers. The only fix is waiting, possibly for quite a while. The real bug is testing itself. -- You win again, gravity! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question re Debian versions
Travis Casey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 18 March 2004 21:35, Paul Johnson wrote: Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not sure that less stable is the right term, but less usable almost certainly is. backports.org is your friend. Here's a question for the more experienced folks: is downgrading from unstable to stable as easy as upgrading is? No, downgrades are not supported at all. You can force downgrades, but the package maintainer scripts are not generally written to handle downgrades. If you downgrade a whole distribution, things *will* break. -- You win again, gravity! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
