Ricardo . said :
> A stable puredyne metapackage would be a great idea. I understand
> that the main focus from puredyne are the liveCD and liveUSB systems, but it
> would be also awesome to have a repository dedicated to deliver Debian Stable
> newer versions from art apps, so that we can build a DAW upon a solid basis.
> It
> is, however, something similar to what 64studio and Musix are, but both have
> it's problem: 64studio's development is really slow nowadays and both don't
> offer so many art programming tools as puredyne does. I'm installing probably
> this week a GNU audio system on some computers at the Electronic Music Lab our
> university here in Brazil and, as it stays now, I will install Debian Lenny
> and
> compile in a regular basis the newer versions from software we will be using
> to
> our audio work. A stable puredyne repository could change that in the near
> future.
>
> Ricardo
Hi Ricardo,
I think we are now facing what 64Studio faced at some point, which is
how to deal with the slow development cycle of Debian. Their solution if
I remember correctly was in the end to make a snapshot of Debian and
maintain it on their own, then recently I believe that they completely
switched to Ubuntu, probably because building on top of Ubuntu or making
a snapshot of Ubuntu is more simple.
Now, we are of course focussing a lot on the live distro, but at the
same time, we really need a good Debian repos for solid installs that
needs full updates.
I think this is an open discussion with everyone. For example, what are
the pros and cons:
* work with stable
pros: - it is stable, so dependencies are more robust (only security
fixes or major bug will be fixed)
- using metapackages is not a problem
cons: - it will become outdated faster, not good for recent hardware
(we can always update kernel of course, but we might have to
eventually backport more tricky things like acpid, udevd, ..
xorg even)
- we still need a testing repos, for ... testing new software
how do we do it? our testing repos would be in fact meant for
testing packages against lenny (and NOT squeeze) for future
inclusion in our stable repos.
- some software will need backporting
- the live distro can including any complex match of software
because we use a lot of pinning when it's built. So to keep a
full install fresh with some software that we are not packaging,
the user will also have to do some pining.
* stick with testing/unstable mix
pros: - very up to date
- allow to build more bleeding edge stuff
- more forgetful and quick and dirty approach to building an
operating system.
cons: - hard to fix the mess for a newbie (broken packages, conflicts)
- require more regular updates to keep up with changes in
testing/unstable
- metapackaging is meant to break all the time
- always difficult to keep track of all changes that might break
an installation or make the building of the live medium
impossible.
I am not against updating the lenny repos and move to a more sane
release/dev cycle, I think that it would also solved quite some
headaches we had (for example, how to test our packages without breaking
everyone's installations if we have only one repos for both testing and
stable).
Also, as mentionned in the past, next coding sprint, we want to start
moving our packaging to Debian itself, so we have to adopt their release
cycle sooner or later.
Any thoughts on this?
a.
>
> 2009/3/31 Rob Canning <[email protected]>
>
> ok so i have recently upgraded about 4 systems
> and kept having problems due to broken packages
> every time i went aptitude install puredyne there was always some problem.
> puredyne is a metapackage which points to lots of other packages that
> makes
> puredyne puredyne. if one of these has broken dependencies then it wont
> install
> properly - when i tried it yesterday - 3 packages had broken dependencies
> qsampler transcode and puredyne-processing.
> i couldnt figure out how to force puredynt just to ignore these broken
> dependencies and do the best job it could.
> as a work around i just did an aptitude install on all the packages except
> the
> broken ones
>
> you can see what packages are in puredyne by typing
>
> aptitude show puredyne
>
>
> i added all the packages listed here after
>
> aptitude install long list here
>
> making sure to remove the three broken packages from the list
>
> a attached a little script to this email which installs all the packages
> in
> the
> puredyne metapackage
> you can remove any broken packages if you are having problems and at least
> you
> will have 99% of puredyne
>
> its a hack but maybe will get you out of a hole until we figure out a
> better
> way of dealing with this problem of broken packages in debian testing
>
> claude suggested a stable puredyne metapackage? how about that?
>
> hope this helps
>
> rob
>
> --------------
> [email protected]
> rob.goto10.org
> --------------
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFJ0gG9yHhCfi3DkcIRAq3MAJ9P0GEiP6zT/i3hSv82SuLIh56G3wCfXDi0
> FfghwR+e9rrD/EiR7QgbTFk=
> =Qjn7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---
> [email protected]
> irc.goto10.org #pure:dyne
>
>
> ---
> [email protected]
> irc.goto10.org #pure:dyne
---
[email protected]
irc.goto10.org #pure:dyne
