Re: Debian has turned unusable.
Freivald, Joseph A, GVSOL [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello, I'm new to the Debian community, but I have used RedHat for about 8 years, and Gentoo for almost two. I must say, Debian is quite good compared to these other distro's. Perhaps RH is more stable than Sid/Sarge, but there is NO way to install a base system from a RH CD. The smallest install I was ever able to get was over 450MB and included LOTS of extras that I really didn't want. I see lots of people advocating Sid(unstable) as a desktop, but shouldn't people who are not developers/maintainers gravitate to Sarge? In a word - no. IMHO testing is *only* for developers who run a 2nd box to check integration and freezing into stable. Testing usually is OK and typically suffers from fewer bugs than unstable/sid. However, bugs that do make it into testing are often not fixed and can linger for a long time due to the semi-autonomous migration policies from unstable to testing. For example: last year sometime, gv got updated and needed a new library version. The new library had some bug or other but the gv didn't properly depend upon it. Thus gv entered testing but was broken. No new library was coming because it got kept back. Despite numerous bug reports, *testing* never got fixed until much later. It got sorted in unstable within days. There is no mechanism for actually fixing bugs in testing -- bugs are fixed in sid and trickle down, *eventually*. Testing is last in getting security updates for this reason as well. Isn't testing/debugging Sarge supposed to be a priority? Perhaps, but in reality it does not appear be such. I tried using testing but was unhappy with it and finally went to sarge. I feel stable is for servers and people with 5 year old video cards. Unstable is for everyone else (most people). Testing is for people working on assembling the next stable on their spare boxen. Also, since packages automatically drop into sarge from Sid after 10 days (unless there is an unresolved issue), you are likely to get all the great new apps that you want, but without someone dropping in a new, buggy version by mistake. Likely, but in case of bug, there is no direct mechanism whereby testing gets fixed. If, e.g., libc happens to rev during the 10 days that a fix needs to wait, you can wait a really long time. Also, this would make more bug reports get filed against Sarge, which would help to progress it to the next stable. Bug reports against sarge do not result in action fixing sarge directly, but are filtered through sid and automated process. Stable and sid are fixed directly. This makes testing the least maintained of the three flavors. I realise that I have written these in a somewhat argumentative form, And I have, perhaps cynically but honestly, responded argumentatively. Hope the comments have helped. but read them as questions. As I said, I'm new here ( 3 months ), but I have read up as much as I can find on the releases and the procedures for advancement. I have used Sarge for about 6 installs now (including upgrade from Woody and the new installer), and I'm very pleased with it's performance and package features. I used Woody for my file server (which now has a local Debian Mirror!), mostly because I don't care about the desktop on it, and I like to have the security patches, but I have Sarge running on two laptops, three desktops and a DB server. Also, I'm running Kernel 2.6.3 with the proprietary Nvidia driver and VMware Workstation on my work laptop. I note this because these things were exceptionally problematic on other distros, but were cheezy-eazy on Debian. --JATF -Original Message- From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Monique Y. Mudama Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 7:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Debian has turned unusable. On 2004-04-12, Adam Aube penned: Monique Y. Mudama wrote: Well, more unstable than the stable distribution takes a lot longer to type and wouldn't fit on a CD volume label =P What about current, then? This would encourage people to use the unstable distribution, which by definition isn't considered ready for prime time. The truth is that there are tradeoffs; a one-word name just isn't going to capture those tradeoffs. If anything, the right term for unstable might be head or tip -- or would that be experimental? But what do I know? I'm just a random user. It does seem to me that we've had the name game a few times, and every time a dev has strongly indicated that we should leave well enough alone. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Johan KULLSTAM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: When a release is ready. (was Re: Re: Debian has turned unusable.)
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:46:46PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Chris Metzler wrote: One thing that I've never understood, and haven't figured out by reading the Debian Reference or by osmosis from posts here (probably the Debian Developer documents is where I *should* look) is how the goals for a release are determined and communicated to anyone interested. If you find out can you let me know? I propose the Debian distributions be renamed to oozing settling congealed delightful! not bad at all. memorable, clear, and with bountiful character. very picturesque, and ought to help the newbies 'get it'. i know politics probably will reject these at the first filter session, but it's got my vote! :) -- I use Debian/GNU Linux version 3.0; Linux boss 2.4.18-bf2.4 #1 Son Apr 14 09:53:28 CEST 2002 i586 unknown DEBIAN NEWBIE TIP #129 from Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Interested in HACKER CULTURE? For some fun browsing and enlightening anecdotes, browse http://ursine.dyndns.org/jargon/ Also see http://newbieDoc.sourceForge.net/ ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 07:54:23PM +0200, Trollcollect wrote: Hello list, after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the anger and frustration that this distribution has caused. I want to start with saying that i was a strong advocate of debian compared to distributions such as RedHat and SuSE. Being a UNIX admin professionally (Solaris mainly), i felt home on a debian system pretty quick, and the packaging method was unique among all linux deriatives i have seen. Also i used to like debians approach of stability before bleeding-edge stuff. However as i have to install a small network now (7 WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to get an installation CD with the new jigdo method). What i got after installation was - a 2.2 Kernel without ext3 support - a KDE 2.0 overall totally outdated and useless versions of libraries and software. I installed several times from the woody cd and if you start the installation with the bf24 option you will get a 2.4 kernel with an option for ext3 and xfs file systems. You can also install stable using the new installer. I then tried to figure out how to update those packages i need in recent versions. As i know KDE from Solaris, i trust enough in their own QA procedure to consider their 3.2.1 stable enough for usage. Why debian believes KDE 2.0 is more stable, or even usable at all, is beyond my understanding. I don't know the right sources.list entry but for a desktop system you should use either testing/unstable or woody with backports. There are backports for most desktop packages to current versions including kde. It doesn't enter stable officially since stable is frozen in terms of new packages it only takes security updates. However it turned out that i could not update only selected packages easily. In fact neither of dselect or apt-get seemed to have a method to do this in a sensible way. Now it MAY well be that i am just an idiot who is not capable of doing this, however i asked in a few linux related channels and also at work, noone could tell me how to set up a half-way decent debian without compromising the pkg system. Sure many told me to build it all by hand but then, without the packaging system what good is debian? I hope that whoever is responsible for the direction debian is steering to currently thinks about the target of the whole distribution, which is to provide users with a decent linux system that comes stable, yet with all neccessary parts to be competetive among other distributions. Mit sch?nen Gr??en von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] +++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
Trollcollect [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the anger and frustration that this distribution has caused. That's nice. Submit patch or piss off. overall totally outdated and useless versions of libraries and software. http://www.backports.org/ Sorry you couldn't be bothered to ask questions or learn about Debian while you were on the mailing list. You probably should have subscribed sometime before you decided to stop using Debian. I then tried to figure out how to update those packages i need in recent versions. As i know KDE from Solaris, i trust enough in their own QA procedure to consider their 3.2.1 stable enough for usage. Why debian believes KDE 2.0 is more stable, or even usable at all, is beyond my understanding. Because KDE2 is usable. However it turned out that i could not update only selected packages easily. In fact neither of dselect or apt-get seemed to have a method to do this in a sensible way. Because you're probably asking it to install incompatible versions of software, or failing to judiciously use --force-something. Now it MAY well be that i am just an idiot who is not capable of doing this, however i asked in a few linux related channels and also at work, noone could tell me how to set up a half-way decent debian without compromising the pkg system. Sure many told me to build it all by hand but then, without the packaging system what good is debian? The configuration is still sane even without the package management. You don't have to use some distro-specific tool to set things up. It's the only distro that runs on 13 architectures. You can install Debian on a 386 with 16MB of RAM and 100MB of disk and *still* have space for /home. 3rd party Debian packages, even packages for other .deb-based distros, Just Work(tm) in other Debian-based distros. What more reasons do you need? I hope that whoever is responsible for the direction debian is steering to currently thinks about the target of the whole distribution, which is to provide users with a decent linux system that comes stable, yet with all neccessary parts to be competetive among other distributions. We have thought about the direction. That's why Debian is the fastest growing distribution out there. Sorry you decided you don't want to be part of that. -- Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
Kevin Ruml [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather than stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases, comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable isn't renamed to something else to dispel the stigma the name gives? Not necessarily desktop, but there has to be something better than unstable. Except unstable fairly regularly does break. It's not meant for production, it's what the Debian Developers are currently working on. I've been using Sid on my desktop system for years with only a couple glitches over that time period (requiring not apt-get updateing for a few days 'til it sorted itself out). I'm sure there are a number of suggestions forthcoming - latest maybe. I've had more problems than you, it sounds like, but still, anybody with better things to do than fix things that broke for no obvious reason from time to time should be using stable and using backports. -- Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:39:22PM -0500, Kevin Ruml wrote: This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather than stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases, comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable isn't renamed to something else to dispel the stigma the name gives? The name's hardcoded all over the place, unfortunately. Even if we wanted to, it'd actually be rather a large amount of effort to rename it, effort we could more productively spend in finishing off the new installer so that we can release sarge. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: When a release is ready. (was Re: Re: Debian has turned unusable.)
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 08:47:59PM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote: So I would guess that there's some set of target properties that testing should have before it gets frozen that gets decided upon, e.g. the next release must include a 2.4 kernel by default with a 2.6 kernel optional, the new installer, XF86 v4.3, exim4, GNOME 2.2 or higher, etc. Whatever else is true about testing, and even if the release-critical bug count is zero, the release won't be made until these changes in the distro have been effected, since otherwise it isn't different enough or interesting enough to put out there as a new stable release. And I wonder how those goals are chosen, and where one goes to find out what they are. Probably an archive search of debian-devel would do it; but a better-publicized source (e.g. a page on the Debian website) might be a good idea. If the user community had a clear idea what the major issues for each new release are, they'd know the particular packages/services to concentrate on playing with and filing good bug reports about and so on -- thus perhaps helping to speed up the release. I know that a major focus of this release is the new installer, and that right now that's the main thing people should focus on to help the release get out. But earlier, I dunno what else I should have been installing and hammering on to help the release along. I could probably find it in debian-devel's archives; but maybe a page off the Debian front page (Minimal Goals for the Next Release) would be a good idea. Personally I'd rather see much more time-based releases once we've got a reliably-updated installer post-sarge, but hey ... The real reason that there's little in the way of information here is that it could be reduced to a trivial page looking a bit like this: _ _ _ _ | ___(_)_ __ (_)___| |__ | |_ | | '_ \| / __| '_ \ | _| | | | | | \__ \ | | | |_| |_|_| |_|_|___/_| |_| _ _ |_ _| |__ ___ | | | '_ \ / _ \ | | | | | | __/ |_| |_| |_|\___| ___ __ _ _ |_ _|_ __ ___| |_ __ _| | | ___ _ __| | | || '_ \/ __| __/ _` | | |/ _ \ '__| | | || | | \__ \ || (_| | | | __/ | |_| |___|_| |_|___/\__\__,_|_|_|\___|_| (_) Everything else is so far behind that goal that it isn't funny. It's been in every release update posted to debian-devel-announce for the last couple of years. There are minor bits and pieces, sure, but in reality as soon as the new installer's really and truly ready for prime time (which, finally, is a goal that's in sight) we'll be going straight into freeze mode. We (the release management team) have begun putting together better ways to disseminate release targets, but I don't expect them to be decent until we've got sarge out of the way. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Debian has turned unusable.
Hello, I'm new to the Debian community, but I have used RedHat for about 8 years, and Gentoo for almost two. I must say, Debian is quite good compared to these other distro's. Perhaps RH is more stable than Sid/Sarge, but there is NO way to install a base system from a RH CD. The smallest install I was ever able to get was over 450MB and included LOTS of extras that I really didn't want. I see lots of people advocating Sid(unstable) as a desktop, but shouldn't people who are not developers/maintainers gravitate to Sarge? Isn't testing/debugging Sarge supposed to be a priority? Also, since packages automatically drop into sarge from Sid after 10 days (unless there is an unresolved issue), you are likely to get all the great new apps that you want, but without someone dropping in a new, buggy version by mistake. Also, this would make more bug reports get filed against Sarge, which would help to progress it to the next stable. I realise that I have written these in a somewhat argumentative form, but read them as questions. As I said, I'm new here ( 3 months ), but I have read up as much as I can find on the releases and the procedures for advancement. I have used Sarge for about 6 installs now (including upgrade from Woody and the new installer), and I'm very pleased with it's performance and package features. I used Woody for my file server (which now has a local Debian Mirror!), mostly because I don't care about the desktop on it, and I like to have the security patches, but I have Sarge running on two laptops, three desktops and a DB server. Also, I'm running Kernel 2.6.3 with the proprietary Nvidia driver and VMware Workstation on my work laptop. I note this because these things were exceptionally problematic on other distros, but were cheezy-eazy on Debian. --JATF -Original Message- From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Monique Y. Mudama Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 7:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Debian has turned unusable. On 2004-04-12, Adam Aube penned: Monique Y. Mudama wrote: Well, more unstable than the stable distribution takes a lot longer to type and wouldn't fit on a CD volume label =P What about current, then? This would encourage people to use the unstable distribution, which by definition isn't considered ready for prime time. The truth is that there are tradeoffs; a one-word name just isn't going to capture those tradeoffs. If anything, the right term for unstable might be head or tip -- or would that be experimental? But what do I know? I'm just a random user. It does seem to me that we've had the name game a few times, and every time a dev has strongly indicated that we should leave well enough alone. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: When a release is ready. (was Re: Re: Debian has turned unusable.)
Colin Watson declaimed: _ _ _ _ | ___(_)_ __ (_)___| |__ | |_ | | '_ \| / __| '_ \ | _| | | | | | \__ \ | | | |_| |_|_| |_|_|___/_| |_| _ _ |_ _| |__ ___ | | | '_ \ / _ \ | | | | | | __/ |_| |_| |_|\___| ___ __ _ _ |_ _|_ __ ___| |_ __ _| | | ___ _ __| | | || '_ \/ __| __/ _` | | |/ _ \ '__| | | || | | \__ \ || (_| | | | __/ | |_| |___|_| |_|___/\__\__,_|_|_|\___|_| (_) Colin, you've inspired me. I'm really happy running Sarge/Testing with frequent apt-get dist-upgrades. The only gotcha I've hit in months was the 2.6 kernel wonking my mouse in X and making cdrtoaster use a funny device argument (still can't find the docs but a tip from this list got me going). Of course, I'm happy with stodgy old Mozilla and run a bare Blackbox config in preference to GNOME or KDE. And no, Hugo, I don't use Mondo. I run a journalling file system (ext3) which I test by using the power button to shut down. Haven't lost a file yet :-) But what I haven't done is give back to Debian for years of free computing. So I'm publicly comitting to downloading CDs, testing the installer, and reporting bugs promptly. Specifically, next weekend I'll spend up to 4 hours on it (not counting CD burning). Regards, Paul PS: Points off for the ASCII art, but your credit balance (based on many excellent posts to this list) is not threatened :-) -- Paul Mackinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 the mental interface of Trollcollect told: Hello list, [...] I then tried to figure out how to update those packages i need in recent versions. As i know KDE from Solaris, i trust enough in their own QA procedure to consider their 3.2.1 stable enough for usage. Why debian believes KDE 2.0 is more stable, or even usable at all, is beyond my understanding. Did you caught a potato image. Experienced as you are, you might have a look at the Debian Sarge installer ;-) Ciao Elimar -- It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On April 12, 2004 10:54 am, Trollcollect wrote: Hello list, after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the anger and frustration that this distribution has caused. I want to start with saying that i was a strong advocate of debian compared to distributions such as RedHat and SuSE. Being a UNIX admin professionally (Solaris mainly), i felt home on a debian system pretty quick, and the packaging method was unique among all linux deriatives i have seen. Also i used to like debians approach of stability before bleeding-edge stuff. However as i have to install a small network now (7 WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to get an installation CD with the new jigdo method). What i got after installation was - a 2.2 Kernel without ext3 support - a KDE 2.0 overall totally outdated and useless versions of libraries and software. You installed stable. You really don't want to run stable if you're looking for a desktop system. Perhaps debian should put a note to that effect on the website. Add the unstable sources to your /etc/apt/sources.list and then use aptitude (apt-get install aptitude) to upgrade KDE. ~leo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
High, On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, [iso-8859-1] Trollcollect wrote: Hello list, snip However as i have to install a small network now (7 WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to get an installation CD with the new jigdo method). What i got after installation was - a 2.2 Kernel without ext3 support - a KDE 2.0 overall totally outdated and useless versions of libraries and software. I don't know what kernel the CD images have, but 2.2 is a bit old, I agree. But even in the stable distribution, 2.4.18 is available as a kernel and testing even has 2.6.3. I then tried to figure out how to update those packages i need in recent versions. As i know KDE from Solaris, i trust enough in their own QA procedure to consider their 3.2.1 stable enough for usage. Why debian believes KDE 2.0 is more stable, or even usable at all, is beyond my understanding. However it turned out that i could not update only selected packages easily. In fact neither of dselect or apt-get seemed to have a method to do this in a sensible way. I am not sure how you got stuck with old packages, so let's start from the beginning. First make sure /etc/apt/sources.list is correct with lines like: deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ stable main non-free contrib deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main contrib non-free If you only want the older tree, remove the second line. Then run: apt-get update apt-get dist-upgrade to update the package list and to install new packages. The kernel however does not get upgraded by default. Do apt-cache search kernel to get a list with kernel packages, like: kernel-image-2.4.18-386 - Linux kernel image for version 2.4.18 on 386. kernel-image-2.6.3-1-686-smp - Linux kernel image for version 2.6.3 on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV SMP. kernel-source-2.4.24 - Linux kernel source for version 2.4.24 with Debian patches (etc) choose to install the one you need with 'apt-get install kernel-image-2.4.18-386' (for example). same idea with kde, but I guess kde get's upgraded by the usual 'apt-get dist-upgrade' (I don't use either kde or kernel-image packages, so I may be slightly off). Now it MAY well be that i am just an idiot who is not capable of doing this, however i asked in a few linux Probably just some basics every Debian n00b has to overcome :) Greetz, Sebastiaan -- English written by Dutch people is easily recognized by the improper use of 'In principle ...' The software box said 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so I installed Linux. Als Pacman in de jaren '80 de kinderen zo had be?nvloed zouden nu veel jongeren rondrennen in donkere zalen terwijl ze pillen eten en luisteren naar monotone electronische muziek. (Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, 1989) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
I suggest you install sarge and immediately thereafter install kernel 2.6.5 Trollcollect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello list, after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the anger and frustration that this distribution has caused. I want to start with saying that i was a strong advocate of debian compared to distributions such as RedHat and SuSE. Being a UNIX admin professionally (Solaris mainly), i felt home on a debian system pretty quick, and the packaging method was unique among all linux deriatives i have seen. Also i used to like debians approach of stability before bleeding-edge stuff. However as i have to install a small network now (7 WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to get an installation CD with the new jigdo method). What i got after installation was - a 2.2 Kernel without ext3 support - a KDE 2.0 overall totally outdated and useless versions of libraries and software. I then tried to figure out how to update those packages i need in recent versions. As i know KDE from Solaris, i trust enough in their own QA procedure to consider their 3.2.1 stable enough for usage. Why debian believes KDE 2.0 is more stable, or even usable at all, is beyond my understanding. However it turned out that i could not update only selected packages easily. In fact neither of dselect or apt-get seemed to have a method to do this in a sensible way. Now it MAY well be that i am just an idiot who is not capable of doing this, however i asked in a few linux related channels and also at work, noone could tell me how to set up a half-way decent debian without compromising the pkg system. Sure many told me to build it all by hand but then, without the packaging system what good is debian? I hope that whoever is responsible for the direction debian is steering to currently thinks about the target of the whole distribution, which is to provide users with a decent linux system that comes stable, yet with all neccessary parts to be competetive among other distributions. Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On 2004-04-12, Trollcollect penned: Hello list, after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the anger and frustration that this distribution has caused. Now, now; take a deep breath, count to ten, and read the rest of this post before blaming Debian for your problems. I want to start with saying that i was a strong advocate of debian compared to distributions such as RedHat and SuSE. Being a UNIX admin professionally (Solaris mainly), i felt home on a debian system pretty quick, and the packaging method was unique among all linux deriatives i have seen. Also i used to like debians approach of stability before bleeding-edge stuff. However as i have to install a small network now (7 WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to get an installation CD with the new jigdo method). What i got after installation was - a 2.2 Kernel without ext3 support - a KDE 2.0 overall totally outdated and useless versions of libraries and software. I then tried to figure out how to update those packages i need in recent versions. As i know KDE from Solaris, i trust enough in their own QA procedure to consider their 3.2.1 stable enough for usage. Why debian believes KDE 2.0 is more stable, or even usable at all, is beyond my understanding. Actually, what you're not understanding is Debian's release system. Now, as I'm sure you know, Woody is the current stable incarnation of Debian. What you may not know is that stable refers to the whole distribution, not just one package. The debian developers test the hell out of a bunch of packages, and when everything is solid enough and works together, that set is released as the current stable version. New versions aren't added to stable; instead, the entire testing (sarge) set of packages is beat to death, then becomes the new stable distribution. The only changes to a stable distribution are patches to fix security issues. Thus, right now, shortly before a new stable release, Woody actually contains packages that are several years old. The contents of the stable distribution are *not* a commentary on the latest version of a package to be trustworthy. They are rather a set of packages that have been fully tested with one another and are known to be solid and work well together. Bear in mind, it's not just the upstream software that's at issue; it's also the package itself. If the debian package was not constructed properly, all sorts of trouble ensues. However it turned out that i could not update only selected packages easily. In fact neither of dselect or apt-get seemed to have a method to do this in a sensible way. I think you need to research apt pinning. Here's my first hit on google: http://jaqque.sbih.org/kplug/apt-pinning.html Also, you may find that you prefer aptitude to dselect. Worth looking at, anyway. Now it MAY well be that i am just an idiot who is not capable of doing this, however i asked in a few linux related channels and also at work, noone could tell me how to set up a half-way decent debian without compromising the pkg system. Sure many told me to build it all by hand but then, without the packaging system what good is debian? Why did you ask in general linux channels about debian-specific issues? Seems to me that you didn't go to the people most suited to helping you. Debian-user, on the other hand, is the right place. If you'd come here first, I think you could have saved yourself a lot of frustration. I hope that whoever is responsible for the direction debian is steering to currently thinks about the target of the whole distribution, which is to provide users with a decent linux system that comes stable, yet with all neccessary parts to be competetive among other distributions. This paragraph suggests to me that you haven't done your research about Debian. We engage in these sorts of discussions all the time. Try to understand the reasons behind the current system before accusing Debian of being poorly planned or executed. In particular, I don't recall your mission statement to be related at all to the goals of Debian. Perhaps you should look here for a hint of why Debian exists: http://www.debian.org/social_contract You praise the packaging system and how smoothly all the pieces interact, but you condemn the practices that allow this packaging system to do its job properly. Please take some time to understand how the system works. Once you really do understand it, we can talk about its possible shortcomings. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Trollcollect wrote: I want to start with saying that i was a strong advocate of debian compared to distributions such as RedHat and SuSE. Please don't advocate things you don't understand. You are doing neither yourself or the people you are trying to give advice to. Now follows an attempt to provide some quick answers. Every single issue you raise has been brought up and answered ad nauseum on this list and elsewhere. Being a UNIX admin professionally (Solaris mainly), i felt home on a debian system pretty quick, and the packaging method was unique among all linux deriatives i have seen. Also i used to like debians approach of stability before bleeding-edge stuff. However as i have to install a small network now (7 WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to get an installation CD with the new jigdo method). Jigdo is the ideal method and seems to work for most people however the same page that describes jigdo (http://www.debian.org/distrib/cd) also has pointers to where to get the full iso images. What i got after installation was - a 2.2 Kernel without ext3 support - a KDE 2.0 overall totally outdated and useless versions of libraries and software. This is the result of stability before bleeding edge stuff. The woody cds and boot floppies do support kernel 2.4 which you can use by typing bf24 at the initial prompt. I then tried to figure out how to update those packages i need in recent versions. As i know KDE from Solaris, i trust enough in their own QA procedure to consider their 3.2.1 stable enough for usage. Why debian believes KDE 2.0 is more stable, or even usable at all, is beyond my understanding. You misunderstand the meaning of stable in the debian context. It is not a comment on the stability of individual packages but the distribution as a whole. However it turned out that i could not update only selected packages easily. In fact neither of dselect or apt-get seemed to have a method to do this in a sensible way. apt-get install apt-howto-en (or apt-howto-de if you prefer) and read about apt pinning and adding additional apt sources. See http://www.backports.org/ for a source of woody packages for the latest KDE, Gnome, kernel 2.6, Apache 2, etc. Now it MAY well be that i am just an idiot who is not capable of doing this, however i asked in a few linux related channels and also at work, noone could tell me how to set up a half-way decent debian without compromising the pkg system. Sure many told me to build it all by hand but then, without the packaging system what good is debian? Don't take advice from random people in random places. Spend 15 minutes on google first. I hope that whoever is responsible for the direction debian is steering to currently thinks about the target of the whole distribution, which is to provide users with a decent linux system that comes stable, yet with all neccessary parts to be competetive among other distributions. Nobody is responsible for the direction Debian is steering (or rather 900 people are steering it in different directions!) The nearest thing we have to a target is the Debian social contract and free software guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract) Definitely there are parts of the Debian process that need improvement but learn about what's already possible before criticizing. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 07:54:23PM +0200, Trollcollect wrote: Hello list, after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the anger and frustration that this distribution has caused. I want to start with saying that i was a strong advocate of debian compared to distributions such as RedHat and SuSE. Being a UNIX admin professionally (Solaris mainly), i felt home on a debian system pretty quick, and the packaging method was unique among all linux deriatives i have seen. Also i used to like debians approach of stability before bleeding-edge stuff. However as i have to install a small network now (7 WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to get an installation CD with the new jigdo method). What i got after installation was - a 2.2 Kernel without ext3 support enter bf24 at the boot: prompt from the installation CD to get a 2.4.18 kernel with ext3 support or upgrade your kernel once you've installed it - a KDE 2.0 add to /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://download.kde.org/stable/3.2.1/Debian stable main -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x21C61F7F pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
Yea, verily, I say unto you that on this date (Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:11:55 -0600) Monique Y. Mudama [EMAIL PROTECTED] didst appear within my Magick Viewing Screen and, being somewhat pleasantly supplicatory, did polemicize thusly: Now, as I'm sure you know, Woody is the current stable incarnation of Debian. What you may not know is that stable refers to the whole distribution, not just one package. The debian developers test the hell out of a bunch of packages, and when everything is solid enough and works together, that set is released as the current stable version. New versions aren't added to stable; instead, the entire testing (sarge) set of packages is beat to death, then becomes the new stable distribution. The only changes to a stable distribution are patches to fix security issues. Thus, right now, shortly before a new stable release, Woody actually contains packages that are several years old. The contents of the stable distribution are *not* a commentary on the latest version of a package to be trustworthy. They are rather a set of packages that have been fully tested with one another and are known to be solid and work well together. Bear in mind, it's not just the upstream software that's at issue; it's also the package itself. If the debian package was not constructed properly, all sorts of trouble ensues. Well said, as was the rest of your post. I would just like to add (since no one else has(which I can barely believe)) that the 'unstable' version is decidedly /stable/ for desktop/workstation use. I (no Linux guru) have had uptimes of 60+ days and only that little because of electrical outages. The version names are somewhat misleading, therefore, because 'unstable' is quite as stable as some other distro's newest and best. Cybe R. Wizard -of course, YMMV and you get to keep both pieces if it /does/ break -- Unofficial Wizard of Odds, A.H.P. Original PORG Water Wizard, R.P. Wize(ned) Wizard, A.P.F-P-Y. Barely Tolerated Wizard, A.J.L A.A.L -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
If you want more current packages, you might consider upgrading to testing or even unstable. especially in unstable, things sometimes do break, but you could take a look and see if more of what you want is in one of these distributions and decide whether you want to upgrade your whole system or just add what you need. -- Cheryl Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On 2004-04-12, Cybe R. Wizard penned: Well said, as was the rest of your post. Thank you =) I would just like to add (since no one else has(which I can barely believe)) that the 'unstable' version is decidedly /stable/ for desktop/workstation use. I (no Linux guru) have had uptimes of 60+ days and only that little because of electrical outages. The version names are somewhat misleading, therefore, because 'unstable' is quite as stable as some other distro's newest and best. Well, more unstable than the stable distribution takes a lot longer to type and wouldn't fit on a CD volume label =P I am of mixed opinions about recommending stable vs. unstable. I generally feel that unstable administration is best left to those who have a pretty good sense of how the debian system works; on the other hand, those who are new to the debian system are more likely to stick around if they have access to the latest and greatest, and stable just can't do that. On the third hand, expecting novice debian users to configure apt pinning on a stable system seems a bit much -- I myself only learned about pinning a few months ago, and I'm sure I don't know the half of it! If you really wanted to toy with names, perhaps change-averse and change-friendly would be more appropriate monikers for these distributions, with testing being renamed developer_playground or something. Cybe R. Wizard -of course, YMMV and you get to keep both pieces if it /does/ break Indeed. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
Pigeon wrote: enter bf24 at the boot: prompt from the installation CD to get a 2.4.18 kernel with ext3 support or upgrade your kernel once you've installed it Good advice. - a KDE 2.0 add to /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://download.kde.org/stable/3.2.1/Debian stable main Again good advice. The above is what I do and recommend as well. Except I use 3.2 in the place of 3.2.1 since 3.2.1 from kde.org is an illusion. Note that 3.2.1 is a symlink to 3.2.0 and so this might confuse someone expecting 3.2.1 but getting 3.2.0 packages. I have complained about this to the ftp site maintainer. It would be better if the symlink did not exist since no 3.2.1 backport exists at the moment. Conversation with folks over to kde.org says they are behind and will likely skip 3.2.1 entirely and produce a backport of 3.2.2 as a way of catching up. Bob pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
Trollcollect wrote: Hello list, However as i have to install a small network now (7 WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to get an installation CD with the new jigdo method). What i got after installation was - a 2.2 Kernel without ext3 support - a KDE 2.0 overall totally outdated and useless versions of libraries and software. Wrong image. Both translations apply. Try asking instead of attacking. You come across as more of a troll than a collector. Regards, David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Debian has turned unusable.
This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather than stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases, comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable isn't renamed to something else to dispel the stigma the name gives? Not necessarily desktop, but there has to be something better than unstable. I've been using Sid on my desktop system for years with only a couple glitches over that time period (requiring not apt-get updateing for a few days 'til it sorted itself out). I'm sure there are a number of suggestions forthcoming - latest maybe. P.S. Don't CC me, I read the list. Kevin Ruml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:39:22PM -0500, Kevin Ruml wrote: | This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather than | stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases, | comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable isn't renamed to something | else to dispel the stigma the name gives? How about shortening the release cycle so that stable is more up-to-date? Let's solve the problem rather than the symptons. :-). (Note - this is not an invitation to begin a flamefest regarding why the release cycle is so long or to make suggestions regarding what other people can do to fix it. Instead it is an invitation to first recognize the issue and second to help resolve it) -D -- If you want to know what God thinks about money, just look at the people He gives it to. -- Old Irish Saying www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
OT- third hand was: Re: Debian has turned unusable.
Yea, verily, I say unto you that on this date (Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:57:40 -0600) Monique Y. Mudama [EMAIL PROTECTED] didst appear within my Magick Viewing Screen and, being somewhat pleasantly supplicatory, did polemicize thusly: On the third hand, Since the 1993 printing of Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's sequel to The Mote In God's Eye, The Gripping Hand, a tale of three armed aliens, that rather uncomfortable but often useful phrase, on the third hand, has given way in lots of arenas to, on the gripping hand. I know it's not Debian related, but, whatthehell, someone might be interested and begin using it. Otherwise, if anyone is particularly offended by this post, either flame or bozofy me and I won't do it again. Cybe R. Wizard -maybe -- Unofficial Wizard of Odds, A.H.P. Original PORG Water Wizard, R.P. Wize(ned) Wizard, A.P.F-P-Y. Barely Tolerated Wizard, A.J.L A.A.L -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
Monique Y. Mudama wrote: Well, more unstable than the stable distribution takes a lot longer to type and wouldn't fit on a CD volume label =P What about current, then? Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 06:04:33PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:39:22PM -0500, Kevin Ruml wrote: | This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather than | stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases, | comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable isn't renamed to something | else to dispel the stigma the name gives? How about shortening the release cycle so that stable is more up-to-date? Let's solve the problem rather than the symptons. :-). (Note - this is not an invitation to begin a flamefest regarding why the release cycle is so long or to make suggestions regarding what other people can do to fix it. Instead it is an invitation to first recognize the issue and second to help resolve it) I think the issue is recognised. But due to the nature of the beast nothing can change, so there's no point discussing it. Personally I don't see what the big deal is. I am yet another happy long-time unstable user. It's not as if it upgrades packages without the user instigating the upgrade. So once the user has a stable unstable system grin, stability can be kept by not upgrading. A -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
Better yet, use Knoppix. Or wait a couple days for the new one. http://knopper.net/knoppix/index-old-en.html Easiest and best Debian available. You're right, though. It's like M$ trying to push 3.1 because it's so old all the bugs have finally been worked out, and it's so stable... Many people would call that obsolete. --- Jim Woodward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest you install sarge and immediately thereafter install kernel 2.6.5 Trollcollect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello list, after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the anger and frustration that this distribution has caused. I want to start with saying that i was a strong advocate of debian compared to distributions such as RedHat and SuSE. Being a UNIX admin professionally (Solaris mainly), i felt home on a debian system pretty quick, and the packaging method was unique among all linux deriatives i have seen. Also i used to like debians approach of stability before bleeding-edge stuff. However as i have to install a small network now (7 WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to get an installation CD with the new jigdo method). What i got after installation was - a 2.2 Kernel without ext3 support - a KDE 2.0 overall totally outdated and useless versions of libraries and software. I then tried to figure out how to update those packages i need in recent versions. As i know KDE from Solaris, i trust enough in their own QA procedure to consider their 3.2.1 stable enough for usage. Why debian believes KDE 2.0 is more stable, or even usable at all, is beyond my understanding. However it turned out that i could not update only selected packages easily. In fact neither of dselect or apt-get seemed to have a method to do this in a sensible way. Now it MAY well be that i am just an idiot who is not capable of doing this, however i asked in a few linux related channels and also at work, noone could tell me how to set up a half-way decent debian without compromising the pkg system. Sure many told me to build it all by hand but then, without the packaging system what good is debian? I hope that whoever is responsible for the direction debian is steering to currently thinks about the target of the whole distribution, which is to provide users with a decent linux system that comes stable, yet with all neccessary parts to be competetive among other distributions. Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT- third hand was: Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On 2004-04-12, Cybe R. Wizard penned: Yea, verily, I say unto you that on this date (Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:57:40 -0600) Monique Y. Mudama [EMAIL PROTECTED] didst appear within my Magick Viewing Screen and, being somewhat pleasantly supplicatory, did polemicize thusly: On the third hand, Since the 1993 printing of Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's sequel to The Mote In God's Eye, The Gripping Hand, a tale of three armed aliens, that rather uncomfortable but often useful phrase, on the third hand, has given way in lots of arenas to, on the gripping hand. I know it's not Debian related, but, whatthehell, someone might be interested and begin using it. I have read both. I found the first interesting; the second disappointing. I've far exceeded my yearly OT quota, and it's only April, so if you are interested in discussing the books further, feel free to email me directly. Otherwise, if anyone is particularly offended by this post, either flame or bozofy me and I won't do it again. Cybe R. Wizard -maybe -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On 2004-04-12, Kevin Ruml penned: This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather than stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases, comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable isn't renamed to something else to dispel the stigma the name gives? Not necessarily desktop, but there has to be something better than unstable. I've been using Sid on my desktop system for years with only a couple glitches over that time period (requiring not apt-get updateing for a few days 'til it sorted itself out). I'm sure there are a number of suggestions forthcoming - latest maybe. I'm not sure I agree with your first point. Is it really no more unstable than the latest releases of other distros? I haven't used another distro in years, so I can't say that you're wrong, but I don't know if you're right. It seems to me that the real solution would be to somehow force would-be debian admins to read a document describing, in excruciating detail, the differences among versions. This is a start: http://www.debian.org/releases/ ... but it doesn't explain everything. It does not, for example, explain that there have not been substantive changes since whenever Woody became stable ... and the specified release date of Nov. 2003 is downright misleading. It's frustrating to see users misunderstanding the characteristics of stable, testing, and unstable, but when I think about it, this is information I have acquired over time by reading this list -- it was not intuitively obvious, nor something I gleaned from reading any debian docs. Is there something akin to a Howto choose a debian distribution document somewhere on the debian site? If not, this sounds like something I could write. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On 2004-04-12, Adam Aube penned: Monique Y. Mudama wrote: Well, more unstable than the stable distribution takes a lot longer to type and wouldn't fit on a CD volume label =P What about current, then? This would encourage people to use the unstable distribution, which by definition isn't considered ready for prime time. The truth is that there are tradeoffs; a one-word name just isn't going to capture those tradeoffs. If anything, the right term for unstable might be head or tip -- or would that be experimental? But what do I know? I'm just a random user. It does seem to me that we've had the name game a few times, and every time a dev has strongly indicated that we should leave well enough alone. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When a release is ready. (was Re: Re: Debian has turned unusable.)
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:04:33 -0400 Derrick 'dman' Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about shortening the release cycle so that stable is more up-to-date? Let's solve the problem rather than the symptons. :-). (Note - this is not an invitation to begin a flamefest regarding why the release cycle is so long or to make suggestions regarding what other people can do to fix it. Instead it is an invitation to first recognize the issue and second to help resolve it) One thing that I've never understood, and haven't figured out by reading the Debian Reference or by osmosis from posts here (probably the Debian Developer documents is where I *should* look) is how the goals for a release are determined and communicated to anyone interested. What I mean by goals can be illustrated by an absurd example. Imagine that the day after sarge becomes stable, the testing distribution is still exactly the same as sarge, except for a revision update of some non-essential package (e.g. liferea or frozen-bubble); that's all that's come down to testing. This would be a distro that could be released as stable; but it wouldn't be, of course, because why issue another stable release when the only difference is a slight change in some non-essential package? I know Debian's main threshhold for release is when it's ready; but the new release has to be sufficiantly different from the immediately previous one. So I would guess that there's some set of target properties that testing should have before it gets frozen that gets decided upon, e.g. the next release must include a 2.4 kernel by default with a 2.6 kernel optional, the new installer, XF86 v4.3, exim4, GNOME 2.2 or higher, etc. Whatever else is true about testing, and even if the release-critical bug count is zero, the release won't be made until these changes in the distro have been effected, since otherwise it isn't different enough or interesting enough to put out there as a new stable release. And I wonder how those goals are chosen, and where one goes to find out what they are. Probably an archive search of debian-devel would do it; but a better-publicized source (e.g. a page on the Debian website) might be a good idea. If the user community had a clear idea what the major issues for each new release are, they'd know the particular packages/services to concentrate on playing with and filing good bug reports about and so on -- thus perhaps helping to speed up the release. I know that a major focus of this release is the new installer, and that right now that's the main thing people should focus on to help the release get out. But earlier, I dunno what else I should have been installing and hammering on to help the release along. I could probably find it in debian-devel's archives; but maybe a page off the Debian front page (Minimal Goals for the Next Release) would be a good idea. I dunno. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: When a release is ready. (was Re: Re: Debian has turned unusable.)
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Chris Metzler wrote: One thing that I've never understood, and haven't figured out by reading the Debian Reference or by osmosis from posts here (probably the Debian Developer documents is where I *should* look) is how the goals for a release are determined and communicated to anyone interested. If you find out can you let me know? I propose the Debian distributions be renamed to oozing settling congealed -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
Kevin Ruml wrote: This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather than stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases, comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable isn't renamed to something else to dispel the stigma the name gives? Not necessarily desktop, but there has to be something better than unstable. I've been using Sid on my desktop system for years with only a couple glitches over that time period (requiring not apt-get updateing for a few days 'til it sorted itself out). I'm sure there are a number of suggestions forthcoming - latest maybe. Have you never had broken packages installed while tracking unstable? I certainly have. And I include in this both applications with critical errors and broken packages. This situation would be unacceptable for a user who is not well versed in Debian and its packaging system. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with recommending testing to a new Debian user. I would recommend using packages from unstable only on the following conditions: - apt-pinning is setup and explained - the user is shown how to check for severe errors at upgrade/install time Something else it occurs to me be useful is an automated way to consider for install/upgrade only unstable packages which have been in the repository for 2 days. Most of my problems have been cases where I have happened to have upgraded before the severe error has been reported against the package. This would in effect create a virtual repository for the user which would be a midpoint between unstable and testing. dircha -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On 2004-04-13, dircha penned: Something else it occurs to me be useful is an automated way to consider for install/upgrade only unstable packages which have been in the repository for 2 days. Most of my problems have been cases where I have happened to have upgraded before the severe error has been reported against the package. This would in effect create a virtual repository for the user which would be a midpoint between unstable and testing. I've been doing this manually via ls -lctr /var/lib/apt/lists/ -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
