Re: Upgrade testing to unstable but debian_version and os-release not changing to sid
On 17/08/2021 15:50, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 17 Aug 2021 at 10:46:49 (+0100), Peter Hillier-Brook wrote: >> On 17/08/2021 02:21, Robbi Nespu wrote: >>> I have been using debian testing (bullseye) for 1 year (plus) and I want >>> to use sid as my daily driver. >>> >>> I change source.list to sid >>> $ cat /etc/apt/sources.list >>> deb http://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/ sid main contrib non-free >>> deb-src http://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/ sid main contrib non-free >>> >>> do the update and upgrade ... >>> >>> $ sudo apt-get update >>> $ sudo apt-get dist-upgrade >>> $ sudo apt-get autoremove >>> $ sudo reboot >>> >>> when booted, I checked systemd os-release and debian release still on >>> bullseye codename >>> >>> $ cat /etc/debian_version >>> 11.0 >>> >>> $ cat /etc/os-release >>> PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)" >>> NAME="Debian GNU/Linux" >>> VERSION_ID="11" >>> VERSION="11 (bullseye)" >>> VERSION_CODENAME=bullseye >>> ID=debian >>> HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/; >>> SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support; >>> BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/; >>> >>> Hurmm.. that is unexpected, are this is normal or did I missed something? >>> >> A similar result occurred here: another update/upgrade/reboot sequence >> fixed it. > > So what does your system print out for the above commands? > And what's the version number and date of your base-files….deb > that's different from 69992 Apr 10 20:55 base-files_11.1_amd64.deb? > > Cheers, > David. > debian_version 11.0 os-release PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)" NAME="Debian GNU/Linux" VERSION_ID="11" VERSION="11 (bullseye)" VERSION_CODENAME=bullseye ID=debian HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/; SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/; base-files 11.1 As expected
Re: Upgrade testing to unstable but debian_version and os-release not changing to sid
On Tue 17 Aug 2021 at 10:46:49 (+0100), Peter Hillier-Brook wrote: > On 17/08/2021 02:21, Robbi Nespu wrote: > > I have been using debian testing (bullseye) for 1 year (plus) and I want > > to use sid as my daily driver. > > > > I change source.list to sid > > $ cat /etc/apt/sources.list > > deb http://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/ sid main contrib non-free > > deb-src http://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/ sid main contrib non-free > > > > do the update and upgrade ... > > > > $ sudo apt-get update > > $ sudo apt-get dist-upgrade > > $ sudo apt-get autoremove > > $ sudo reboot > > > > when booted, I checked systemd os-release and debian release still on > > bullseye codename > > > > $ cat /etc/debian_version > > 11.0 > > > > $ cat /etc/os-release > > PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)" > > NAME="Debian GNU/Linux" > > VERSION_ID="11" > > VERSION="11 (bullseye)" > > VERSION_CODENAME=bullseye > > ID=debian > > HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/; > > SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support; > > BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/; > > > > Hurmm.. that is unexpected, are this is normal or did I missed something? > > > A similar result occurred here: another update/upgrade/reboot sequence > fixed it. So what does your system print out for the above commands? And what's the version number and date of your base-files….deb that's different from 69992 Apr 10 20:55 base-files_11.1_amd64.deb? Cheers, David.
Re: Upgrade testing to unstable but debian_version and os-release not changing to sid
On 17/08/2021 02:21, Robbi Nespu wrote: > I have been using debian testing (bullseye) for 1 year (plus) and I want > to use sid as my daily driver. > > I change source.list to sid > $ cat /etc/apt/sources.list > deb http://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/ sid main contrib non-free > deb-src http://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/ sid main contrib non-free > > do the update and upgrade ... > > $ sudo apt-get update > $ sudo apt-get dist-upgrade > $ sudo apt-get autoremove > $ sudo reboot > > when booted, I checked systemd os-release and debian release still on > bullseye codename > > $ cat /etc/debian_version > 11.0 > > $ cat /etc/os-release > PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)" > NAME="Debian GNU/Linux" > VERSION_ID="11" > VERSION="11 (bullseye)" > VERSION_CODENAME=bullseye > ID=debian > HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/; > SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support; > BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/; > > Hurmm.. that is unexpected, are this is normal or did I missed something? > A similar result occurred here: another update/upgrade/reboot sequence fixed it.
Re: Upgrade testing to unstable but debian_version and os-release not changing to sid
That great knowing it nothing wrong.. well then I just wait, since it nothing much and my source.list is correct -- Robbi Nespu D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA https://robbinespu.gitlab.io | https://mstdn.social/@robbinespu
Re: Upgrade testing to unstable but debian_version and os-release not changing to sid
On Mon 16 Aug 2021 at 21:47:08 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:21:52AM +0800, Robbi Nespu wrote: > > $ cat /etc/debian_version > > 11.0 > > > > $ cat /etc/os-release > > PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)" > > NAME="Debian GNU/Linux" > > VERSION_ID="11" > > VERSION="11 (bullseye)" > > VERSION_CODENAME=bullseye > > ID=debian > > HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/; > > SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support; > > BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/; > > > > Hurmm.. that is unexpected, are this is normal or did I missed something? > > Be patient. A new base-files package hasn't been uploaded into unstable > yet. I'm sure it'll happen sooner or later. > > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=base-files And even then, take note of /usr/share/doc/base-files/README: “Q. Why "bookworm/sid" and not "testing/unstable" as it used to be? “A. The codename is a little bit more informative, as the meaning of "testing" changes over time. “Q. Ok, but how do I know which distribution I'm running? “A. If you are running testing or unstable, then /etc/debian_version is not a reliable way to know that anymore. Looking at the contents of your /etc/apt/sources.list file is probably a much better way.” Cheers, David.
Re: Upgrade testing to unstable but debian_version and os-release not changing to sid
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:21:52AM +0800, Robbi Nespu wrote: > $ cat /etc/debian_version > 11.0 > > $ cat /etc/os-release > PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)" > NAME="Debian GNU/Linux" > VERSION_ID="11" > VERSION="11 (bullseye)" > VERSION_CODENAME=bullseye > ID=debian > HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/; > SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support; > BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/; > > Hurmm.. that is unexpected, are this is normal or did I missed something? Be patient. A new base-files package hasn't been uploaded into unstable yet. I'm sure it'll happen sooner or later. https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=base-files
Upgrade testing to unstable but debian_version and os-release not changing to sid
I have been using debian testing (bullseye) for 1 year (plus) and I want to use sid as my daily driver. I change source.list to sid $ cat /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/ sid main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/ sid main contrib non-free do the update and upgrade ... $ sudo apt-get update $ sudo apt-get dist-upgrade $ sudo apt-get autoremove $ sudo reboot when booted, I checked systemd os-release and debian release still on bullseye codename $ cat /etc/debian_version 11.0 $ cat /etc/os-release PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)" NAME="Debian GNU/Linux" VERSION_ID="11" VERSION="11 (bullseye)" VERSION_CODENAME=bullseye ID=debian HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/; SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/; Hurmm.. that is unexpected, are this is normal or did I missed something? -- Robbi Nespu D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA https://robbinespu.gitlab.io | https://mstdn.social/@robbinespu
Re: [OT] testing on unstable sources list
On 4/1/20 6:46 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 01 apr 20, 15:49:25, dalios wrote: >> On 3/30/20 2:26 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: >> >>>> [...] and still retain testing in sources.list (having testing in >>> sources.list when running unstable is a good idea anyway). >> >> Can you be so kind and explain to me how is that a good idea? I am >> _definitely not_ as knowledgeable as you are, but that sounds strange >> enough to make me wonder what have I missed... >> >> I have only tried unstable twice and only on secondary machines, just >> for experimenting. This question is only for learning purpose. > > The recommendation is based on the statement of a Debian Release Manager > some years ago[1]. > > Basically it may happen that a particular package is removed from > unstable, which will also affect other packages that depend on it. > > With testing in sources.list the package can be installed from there > instead. > > Because apt[2] by default prefers newer versions of a package, if a > package is available in unstable and testing with different versions the > unstable version will be preferred. > > So the only downsides I can think of would be slightly longer download > times on 'apt update' and possibly a late alert that a specific package > is being removed from Debian (typically packages are removed from > testing first, but it may happen the other way around as well). > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00582.html > [2] and other package managers like aptitude, etc. > > Hope this explains, > Andrei > Thanks for the explanation. Dalios
Re: [OT] testing on unstable sources list
On Mi, 01 apr 20, 15:49:25, dalios wrote: > On 3/30/20 2:26 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > >> [...] and still retain testing in sources.list (having testing in > > sources.list when running unstable is a good idea anyway). > > Can you be so kind and explain to me how is that a good idea? I am > _definitely not_ as knowledgeable as you are, but that sounds strange > enough to make me wonder what have I missed... > > I have only tried unstable twice and only on secondary machines, just > for experimenting. This question is only for learning purpose. The recommendation is based on the statement of a Debian Release Manager some years ago[1]. Basically it may happen that a particular package is removed from unstable, which will also affect other packages that depend on it. With testing in sources.list the package can be installed from there instead. Because apt[2] by default prefers newer versions of a package, if a package is available in unstable and testing with different versions the unstable version will be preferred. So the only downsides I can think of would be slightly longer download times on 'apt update' and possibly a late alert that a specific package is being removed from Debian (typically packages are removed from testing first, but it may happen the other way around as well). [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00582.html [2] and other package managers like aptitude, etc. Hope this explains, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] testing on unstable sources list
On 3/30/20 2:26 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: (snip) >> [...] and still retain testing in sources.list (having testing in > sources.list when running unstable is a good idea anyway). (snip) > Kind regards, > Andrei > Can you be so kind and explain to me how is that a good idea? I am _definitely not_ as knowledgeable as you are, but that sounds strange enough to make me wonder what have I missed... I have only tried unstable twice and only on secondary machines, just for experimenting. This question is only for learning purpose. Thanks in advance, Dalios
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
> From: songb...@anthive.com > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > John Hasler wrote: >> songbird writes: >>> i"ve been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental >>> for quite some time now. >> >> Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish. > of course. :) it is not like i"m using a lot of > things from there. more like one or two items. >> Unstable >> contains packages that the developer hopes and expects will migrate to >> Testing and end up in Stable without incident, and he"s usually right. >> Experimental, on the other hand, contains packages that the developer >> wants people to experiment with. It is not a mistake or policy >> violation to upload a package known to contain a grave bug to >> Experimental. > i usually check if there is a newer version there > if i"m experiencing a bug in a version that is in > testing or unstable to see if the newer version solves > the bug. most recently it was libreoffice, but the > newer version didn"t make any difference so i purged > it and reinstalled the testing version again (and then > worked around the issue). between sid and experimental it is only a pound sign move from one source line to the next. An update will satisfy your curiosity without an upgrade. Last I checked there were only 2-3 kernels that were under experimentation, nothing else different from my sid installation. Do I care to mess around with linux-rc ? Not really, so I just went back. Possibly after stretch stability there may be a ton of stuff. By the way, 4.12 was announced as stable and there is no 4.13 yet. https://www.kernel.org/ > songbird
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
John Hasler wrote: > songbird writes: >> i've been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental >> for quite some time now. > > Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish. of course. :) it is not like i'm using a lot of things from there. more like one or two items. > Unstable > contains packages that the developer hopes and expects will migrate to > Testing and end up in Stable without incident, and he's usually right. > Experimental, on the other hand, contains packages that the developer > wants people to experiment with. It is not a mistake or policy > violation to upload a package known to contain a grave bug to > Experimental. i usually check if there is a newer version there if i'm experiencing a bug in a version that is in testing or unstable to see if the newer version solves the bug. most recently it was libreoffice, but the newer version didn't make any difference so i purged it and reinstalled the testing version again (and then worked around the issue). songbird
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 06:52:13AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > tomas writes: > > Big, heavily interdependent systems [...] > I have full Perl and Python environments and I sometimes run CFD, FEM > and CAD packages. I think that the key is that I scan debian-dev for > warnings and don't try to "track" Unstable by upgrading daily. It's > best not to upgrade during the first few weeks after a release. Yes, those two practices go a long way towards keeping you out of trouble. > I don't think "just a window manager" quite describes FVWM. :-) - -- t -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlleLSUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb/kQCfd7EJWLCfr+qFAt+onx0OIjLK +YUAnR/QS64aAQQTB6j0MapnfInICfy/ =N1zi -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
songbird writes: > i've been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental > for quite some time now. Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish. Unstable contains packages that the developer hopes and expects will migrate to Testing and end up in Stable without incident, and he's usually right. Experimental, on the other hand, contains packages that the developer wants people to experiment with. It is not a mistake or policy violation to upload a package known to contain a grave bug to Experimental. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
tomas writes: > Big, heavily interdependent systems consisting of lots of packages > (big language environments à la Perl, Python, Java -- but most > prominently big desktop environments) are especially vulnerable to > version churn, which typically happens in testing once in its life > cycle. I have full Perl and Python environments and I sometimes run CFD, FEM and CAD packages. I think that the key is that I scan debian-dev for warnings and don't try to "track" Unstable by upgrading daily. It's best not to upgrade during the first few weeks after a release. > People with a simple setup (e.g. just a window manager) perhaps won't > even notice anything happened. I don't think "just a window manager" quite describes FVWM. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
Jason Cohen wrote: ... > My question is how Debian Testing and Unstable compare in terms of > stability. The Debian documentation suggests that Testing is more > stable than Unstable because packages are delayed by 2-10 days and can > only be promoted if no RC bugs are opened in that period [1]. Yet, > other sources indicate that Testing can stay broken for weeks due to > large transitions or the freeze before a new stable release [2]. i keep two bootable partitions available and upgrade them out of step so that i always have at least one that works well enough i can get my required tasks done. i've been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental for quite some time now. i've had problems here or there with different pieces but only rarely been bitten where i did not have things running at all. luckily all situations were fixable without reinstallation. i'm very happy with how it has been going. i think Debian rocks and i'm very appreciative of everyone who makes any sort of contribution to the on-going development and packaging. songbird
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
> My experience, solely as a user, has been that sometimes the unstable > distribution breaks and you're hosed. I can't remember when I was > last burned by running testing. I can't remember when I was last burned by Unstable. It is necessary to follow debian-dev to know when not to upgrade. I also do not upgrade very frequently -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
I can not help much in developing or bug analysis, so my contribution has been to test what is handed out to me for testing. I have yet not been able to contribute much as nothing seems to break in testing or sid (amd64 openbox/lxde) ever. Sometimes I wonder when I read the list or archives things being problematic for stable that I have never encountered. Maybe lucky, maybe not trying hard enough. What I have learned testing different distributions is that "stable" and secure are not nearly associated as many people think. My latest favority other distribution has been Manjaro. I currently run linux 4.9/4.11/4.12 in testing there, no problems. Some packages in Manjaro stable are 2-3 years advanced in development than what is maintained in Debian. Very few functionality problems (they can't seem to work along with the grub team). But, is everything going through the same kind of scrutiny with debian or are people exposed to 2-3 years of risk before debian discovers the problem before it introduces a package version in sid? I can not yet tell. So when I am in worry free mode of whatever happens happens, I use Manjaro. For everything else I use testing and sid. 9/10 of debian based distros has been a waste of time and 0 learning value. My ordered favorites within the 1/10 has been kali, siduction, tails (for the shake of keeping an eye of what is changing in that field and getting security ideas) . But they are almost clean debian with some custom extra packages. Switching from Debian to Manjaro is like parking the dodge (slant 6) van for daily use and picking up the sportbike for a careless rural ride. You just can't go to work with a full leather uniform or park it at the metro station. This is my experience with it all. PS There has been a glimpse of an issue of "security for nothing" in Debian as I have been able to place files or edit files at my Debian /home from Manjaro but not the other way around. So I wonder, if manjaro root can read and write in my debian-user's /home where is the security in being unable as debian root to even take a peak at the user's directory? Don't trust your arch/manjaro sys-admin but feel comfortable with Debian sys-admin, unless he is booting a different system? For a single user system Debian makes your life harder, hopefully not for nothing.
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:24:08PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Jimmy Johnson writes: > > From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before > > making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security > > updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more > > likely to be consistent during transitions. > > Unstable is not required to be consistent at all. > > That said, I've always used it on my desktop and have not had a problem > for at least ten years. However, I use FVWM rather than a desktop > environment. I think that's an important point: it's not only "what do you use it for" or "how much you enjoy tinkering" but also "what is on your system". Big, heavily interdependent systems consisting of lots of packages (big language environments à la Perl, Python, Java -- but most prominently big desktop environments) are especially vulnerable to version churn, which typically happens in testing once in its life cycle. People with a simple setup (e.g. just a window manager) perhaps won't even notice anything happened. - -- t -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlld7fUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbJnwCfTj6q41PaTpNujGElKv7PQA+y kBIAnjvSouQZysPYLU3SxOov+1RuX3ls =lKZ3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
My experience, solely as a user, has been that sometimes the unstable distribution breaks and you're hosed. I can't remember when I was last burned by running testing.
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
On 07/05/2017 07:24 PM, John Hasler wrote: Jimmy Johnson writes: From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more likely to be consistent during transitions. I've read that before someplace, but I did not write it. But I tend to agree, also packages are suppose to be working in theory before going to Sid, just not yet tested, sometimes a package will be downgraded and that obsolete package may not be so obsolete after all, if you're not paying attention you can screw a system up and the same thing can happen in testing too. Unstable is not required to be consistent at all. That said, I've always used it on my desktop and have not had a problem for at least ten years. However, I use FVWM rather than a desktop environment. Me too. :) This Sid system is more than 15yrs old, has seen many releases, three different hard drives and at lest 5 different desktop computers, intel, ati and nvidia too. However, I use KDE, always have, I've used other environments and I could get used to the idea of right clicking on my desktop and finding what I want. Cheers, -- Jimmy Johnson Debian Sid/Testing - KDE Plasma 5.8.7 - Linux 4.9 - EXT4 at sda15 Registered Linux User #380263
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
Jimmy Johnson writes: > From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before > making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security > updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more > likely to be consistent during transitions. Unstable is not required to be consistent at all. That said, I've always used it on my desktop and have not had a problem for at least ten years. However, I use FVWM rather than a desktop environment. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
On 07/05/2017 05:17 PM, Jason Cohen wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I've been using Debian for a number of years, but my experience has typically been with servers where I have used the Stable branch for its reliability and security support. However, I recently began using Debian Stretch for my desktop and foresee a need for more frequent software updates than the approximate 2 year cadence of the Stable release. While the backports repository is great, it only covers a small subset of packages. My question is how Debian Testing and Unstable compare in terms of stability. The Debian documentation suggests that Testing is more stable than Unstable because packages are delayed by 2-10 days and can only be promoted if no RC bugs are opened in that period [1]. Yet, other sources indicate that Testing can stay broken for weeks due to large transitions or the freeze before a new stable release [2]. One user described the releases this way: "Stable is never broken; Unstable is immediately fixed; Testing is neither" [3]. A Debian developer seemingly agreed, responding "That's because some things might break in testing during migration. E.g., when we upload a new major release of something like MATE and half of the packages take a bit longer to migrate to testing, you end up with half of the packages of MATE in testing on the old major version and the other half being on the new major version. This will definitely break" [4]. Chris Lamb also seemed to agree, asking the user why he had not considered Unstable over Testing [4]. In light of the above, it's not clear to me whether I should use Testing or Unstable. Presumably there are situations where one is better than the other. From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more likely to be consistent during transitions. It would be useful to hear more about the pros and cons of each release. In either case, I will be using ZFS for the root pool (I've been using ZFS on Linux for years and I love its resiliency to hardware failure and features) and take daily backups with bacula. As such, I can snapshot before an upgrade and rollback to the snapshot from an initramfs shell if an update somehow makes the system unbootable or otherwise causes serious breakage. As long as I take basic precautions such as reviewing the output of apt-listbugs and making sure that an 'apt-get dist-upgrade' doesn't want to remove half my system, am I likely to experience frequent breakage with either release[5]? What other steps can I take to avoid breakage? Thanks in advance for the information, Jason I'll bite! As a user and a Linux Tester for more than 20yrs, I can say all upstream is going to have problems, including your best rolling release. Someone has to test and someone has to fix the problem or the package gets dropped or you just have a crappy system. Do you enjoy fixing problems, finding a workaround to see a release threw to the end and then start testing(basically that's what you are doing) the next release. Or maybe just run testing, same thing, in both the problems are seasonal, new kernel, new driver, new infrastructure, etc. For stability, the older your Debian system is the better, can it handle your hardware and can you install the package you need. If you like working around problems and using the latest apps Sid/Testing is a blast! Cheers, -- Jimmy Johnson Debian Buster - KDE Plasma 5.8.7 - Intel G3220 - EXT4 at sda14 Registered Linux User #380263
Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
On 7/5/17 8:17 PM, Jason Cohen wrote: > I've been using Debian for a number of years, but my experience has > typically been with servers where I have used the Stable branch for its > reliability and security support. However, I recently began using > Debian Stretch for my desktop and foresee a need for more frequent > software updates than the approximate 2 year cadence of the Stable > release. While the backports repository is great, it only covers a > small subset of packages. > > My question is how Debian Testing and Unstable compare in terms of > stability. The Debian documentation suggests that Testing is more > stable than Unstable because packages are delayed by 2-10 days and can > only be promoted if no RC bugs are opened in that period [1]. Yet, > other sources indicate that Testing can stay broken for weeks due to > large transitions or the freeze before a new stable release [2]. > I have been using testing/kde for several years now and have been bit by some of these transitions. I use ext4 so my snapshot is made by rsnapshot (rsync wrapper). I have had to restore from this snapshot several time when my system won't go into graphics node. Unfortunately rsync has failed when a package has a file with the same date and time but is actually different as seen by its md5sum. There is an explanation for this behavior but I never understood it. To me a file should never have the same date and time but actually be different. rsync's checksum option is very slow!. Apparently there is a fix coming to the way packages are generated which will fix this! I use debsums -ca to check all the package files. I also have a apt-cache-ng server running so that I can always go back to a previous package if needed or pick up a package that has failed debsums. I also run several VMs with various testing and unstable systems so I can see for myself what works. I use testing and unstable source list files and pinning to determine what each system uses. For testing: Package: * Pin: release a=testing Pin-Priority: 900 Package: * Pin: release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 800 Just reverse the pin priory for unstable. This way if I see a package in unstable that I want to try in a testing system I can specify the version number in the install command like this. apt install package=version You can also use apt-mark to set a hold on a package if you see problems others are having with a package in the various debian lists. I did this for some xorg packages a while back to wait for a fix to propagate out. I have a grub boot option to boot to a iso copy of SystemRescueCd if I need to restore files or tweak the system. On top of all this I have a backuppc server backing up all my systems so if I forget a snapshot before a upgrade I still have a backup. I use software raid1 so I can survive a single disk failure. It also allows me to add a disk to the array and pull it after it is synced up and put in a off site storage to have a backup from a fire or water damage event. In my experience testing gets very "stable" running up to a new release. Just before the last release I spent a day updating all my systems/laptops so that I would be about at that stable point. I have not updated my main system since and now apt wants to update 744 (after about 20 days) packages! I haven't seen any major problems in my VMs that I update every day so I suppose I will update it in a few days. ...Bob
Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I've been using Debian for a number of years, but my experience has typically been with servers where I have used the Stable branch for its reliability and security support. However, I recently began using Debian Stretch for my desktop and foresee a need for more frequent software updates than the approximate 2 year cadence of the Stable release. While the backports repository is great, it only covers a small subset of packages. My question is how Debian Testing and Unstable compare in terms of stability. The Debian documentation suggests that Testing is more stable than Unstable because packages are delayed by 2-10 days and can only be promoted if no RC bugs are opened in that period [1]. Yet, other sources indicate that Testing can stay broken for weeks due to large transitions or the freeze before a new stable release [2]. One user described the releases this way: "Stable is never broken; Unstable is immediately fixed; Testing is neither" [3]. A Debian developer seemingly agreed, responding "That's because some things might break in testing during migration. E.g., when we upload a new major release of something like MATE and half of the packages take a bit longer to migrate to testing, you end up with half of the packages of MATE in testing on the old major version and the other half being on the new major version. This will definitely break" [4]. Chris Lamb also seemed to agree, asking the user why he had not considered Unstable over Testing [4]. In light of the above, it's not clear to me whether I should use Testing or Unstable. Presumably there are situations where one is better than the other. From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more likely to be consistent during transitions. It would be useful to hear more about the pros and cons of each release. In either case, I will be using ZFS for the root pool (I've been using ZFS on Linux for years and I love its resiliency to hardware failure and features) and take daily backups with bacula. As such, I can snapshot before an upgrade and rollback to the snapshot from an initramfs shell if an update somehow makes the system unbootable or otherwise causes serious breakage. As long as I take basic precautions such as reviewing the output of apt-listbugs and making sure that an 'apt-get dist-upgrade' doesn't want to remove half my system, am I likely to experience frequent breakage with either release[5]? What other steps can I take to avoid breakage? Thanks in advance for the information, Jason [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-ftparchives#s-test ing and https://www.debian.org/releases/ [2]https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/5h5pvb/is_debian_testing_wo rth_over_arch_linux/day5l8m/ [3]https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/5h5pvb/is_debian_testing_wo rth_over_arch_linux/daxr98u/ [4] https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/5h5pvb/is_debian_testing_w orth_over_arch_linux/daxpyj0/ [5]https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEq7ncLkwZsndhZmLWsskfuEl+i10FAlldgYcACgkQsskfuEl+ i12PBQ/7BDaI2dtUjFDc4Ifx5FDdwT5YaFshg7zinq7pbsvL1VF5y5IaTBB46pHX rVTUE79F8R6ONyTF0Sw97mnT8rxY34XH4oqOVSqe23ZTs++wnAc9g/ZtjyNsg6eM kKyqim9+pi7MLrihkO4/999TXR3dSrv/PzKW8p5uOGS4yqkBPMIildG/hrZ4BilD mJdhU6qLPrsTg+hmNBDikZOHfGA+ZmtxYHm0A5CZze7qnvFwLmNq39+OysBr2zRw TmfP+KbWMqSlpp859sk+hugRj7TDnADPb2uAZvhMXK7Xo676VcefvdX+fkLsCzZu jiOabsTFeGHr2e1ACLrxMJsBv55R1ySBYwuflaaTlpAWD2Xt9K4G0rSOKsiPTVS7 pR2k3bOpzgs3jSl+plWIAEFsSp/OjMg11Ow7DGdKWPo2RW2Kx5kcTMidSfa0ZkUI ZE2d3T5cCnPpfZ9MtyG2c9lQSX9RMrky3UNIWTqOUEzpwNhKP8gN5fsgNQSIDOYV WGc/fQzm2R46pvfVEKxMCcFfF4nz3CYUuWmQGPKa8GqtTI13/eW61gfWtuq6mRo8 wWRPiKuu/M/Op1EMcj2974PqPNH0U4kgWpvzYYkZkg2uS3Z8cP3DnQKd86XS/qhA cnczuP7g+VqhtK/iz+/WPDKfVosFRoctMvWY+h4/3eSArrGQY58= =IEce -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: testing ou unstable
Bonjour, Merci beaucoup à tous pour vos avis et retours d'expérience concernant testing et unstable ! Après leur lecture et réflexion, je vais rester en testing qui me semble, pour mon usage, le meilleur compromis entre stabilité et évolutivité. Cordialement, [CITATION ALÉATOIRE : C'est la nuit qu'il est beau de croire à la lumière. Edmond Rostand] -- Pierre Crescenzo mailto:pie...@crescenzo.nom.fr http://www.crescenzo.nom.fr/ -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mww3byik@tpol.unice.fr
testing ou unstable
Bonjour, En cette période de freeze, je me repose une question qui me revient souvent... J'avais lu un jour une analyse qui conseillait de se positionner en stable ou unstable plutôt qu'en testing. En stable parce qu'elle est stable :-) ou en unstable parce qu'elle n'a pas beaucoup plus de soucis que testing mais avec des actions correctives beaucoup plus rapides. Quelle est votre expérience ? Qu'en pensez-vous ? Merci. Cordialement, [CITATION ALÉATOIRE : Pluie en Novembre, Noël fin décembre. Dicton] -- Pierre Crescenzo mailto:pie...@crescenzo.nom.fr http://www.crescenzo.nom.fr/ -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87obgmyju9@tpol.unice.fr
Re: testing ou unstable
Pierre Crescenzo, 2013-01-18 09:30+0100: En cette période de freeze, je me repose une question qui me revient souvent... J'avais lu un jour une analyse qui conseillait de se positionner en stable ou unstable plutôt qu'en testing. En stable parce qu'elle est stable :-) ou en unstable parce qu'elle n'a pas beaucoup plus de soucis que testing mais avec des actions correctives beaucoup plus rapides. Quelle est votre expérience ? Qu'en pensez-vous ? Merci. Stable si tu veux un système éprouvé. Testing si tu veux des logiciels récents et un peu testés. Unstable si tu veux participer au test des logiciels pour la testing. Testing + paquets individuels d'unstable au besoin si tu veux des logiciels récents et un peu testés, et des correctifs rapides. Je ne pense pas qu'on puisse s'attendre à ce que la unstable soit plus stable que la testing : c'est certes par elle qu'arrivent les correctifs, mais c'est par elle aussi qu'arrivent les bugs ! -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu | `-'Debian Developer irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy \_ -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/kdb4uk$lbe$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: testing ou unstable
Bonjour, En cette période de freeze, je me repose une question qui me revient souvent... J'avais lu un jour une analyse qui conseillait de se positionner en stable ou unstable plutôt qu'en testing. En stable parce qu'elle est stable :-) ou en unstable parce qu'elle n'a pas beaucoup plus de soucis que testing mais avec des actions correctives beaucoup plus rapides. Quelle est votre expérience ? Qu'en pensez-vous ? Merci. Stable si tu veux un système éprouvé. Testing si tu veux des logiciels récents et un peu testés. Unstable si tu veux participer au test des logiciels pour la testing. Testing + paquets individuels d'unstable au besoin si tu veux des logiciels récents et un peu testés, et des correctifs rapides. Je ne pense pas qu'on puisse s'attendre à ce que la unstable soit plus stable que la testing : c'est certes par elle qu'arrivent les correctifs, mais c'est par elle aussi qu'arrivent les bugs ! Oui, c'est la définition. :-) Mais je suis plus intéressé par ce que ça donne dans la réalité des faits quotidiens. Les conseils indiquant de ne pas rester en testing ne sont pas si rares et je voudrais avoir des retours d'expérience avant de me lancer éventuellement. As-tu l'expérience de telles configurations ? Qu'est-ce que ça donne comme différences, pragmatiquement ? Merci. Cordialement, [CITATION ALÉATOIRE : Ne faites jamais l'amour le samedi soir, car s'il pleut le dimanche, vous ne saurez plus quoi faire. Sacha Guitry] -- Pierre Crescenzo mailto:pie...@crescenzo.nom.fr http://www.crescenzo.nom.fr/ -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87wqva25hs@tpol.unice.fr
Re: testing ou unstable
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:41:03 +0100 Pierre Crescenzo pie...@crescenzo.nom.fr wrote: Oui, c'est la définition. :-) Mais je suis plus intéressé par ce que ça donne dans la réalité des faits quotidiens. Les conseils indiquant de ne pas rester en testing ne sont pas si rares et je voudrais avoir des retours d'expérience avant de me lancer éventuellement. As-tu l'expérience de telles configurations ? Qu'est-ce que ça donne comme différences, pragmatiquement ? Mauvaise expérience en testing il y a qq années, donc passage en unstable qui ne m'a jamais rendu la machine inutilisable, sauf si on ne lit pas les changelogs et les avertos lors des MàJ. Maintenant, s'il s'agit de basculer en wheezy sur un _desktop_, je ne pense pas que ça soit un grave danger, et nous sommes apparemment beaucoup à avoir sauté le pas récemment. -- lapinouminou: moi j'ai antivir avec analyse heuristic activé et antivir il se mets à jour tout seul au moins un fois par semaine . de plus sous IE j'utilise secuser et spybot search and destroy qui dispose d'un fonction de vaccination cela permet de black listé des sites internet au comportement frauduleux ,comme le fait spywareblaster que j'ai aussi. alchy: Bah moi j'ai linux -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130118110120.217a0ed6@anubis.defcon1
Re: testing ou unstable
citation de=Pierre Crescenzo Oui, c'est la définition. :-) Mais je suis plus intéressé par ce que ça donne dans la réalité des faits quotidiens. Les conseils indiquant de ne pas rester en testing ne sont pas si rares et je voudrais avoir des retours d'expérience avant de me lancer éventuellement. As-tu l'expérience de telles configurations ? Qu'est-ce que ça donne comme différences, pragmatiquement ? Merci. Bonjour, 1 imac 2 PC 1 portables (bientôt deux) Et tous sous testing (avec quelque pacquage d'unstable) Je n'ai jamais essayé directement unstable. Testing a beaucoup plus de mise à jour que stable ce qui peux s'avérer agaçant à terme. Toutefois, pour certain logiciel, si on veux les dernières moutures, c'est beaucoup plus simple de tous passer en testing. Voila, si tu as des questions plus précises -- Je suis contre l'avortement. Tuer un être humain avant qu'il ne soit né est impardonnable. C'est une preuve d'impatience. -+- Bernard Shaw -+- -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/fd9cf4396ec6b6886ba44ebc5e7c1b27.squirrel@bureau
Re: testing ou unstable
Le vendredi 18 janvier 2013 à 10:41:03, Pierre Crescenzo a écrit : Bonjour, ’jour, […] Je ne pense pas qu'on puisse s'attendre à ce que la unstable soit plus stable que la testing : c'est certes par elle qu'arrivent les correctifs, mais c'est par elle aussi qu'arrivent les bugs ! Oui, c'est la définition. :-) Mais je suis plus intéressé par ce que ça donne dans la réalité des faits quotidiens. Les conseils indiquant de ne pas rester en testing ne sont pas si rares et je voudrais avoir des retours d'expérience avant de me lancer éventuellement. As-tu l'expérience de telles configurations ? Qu'est-ce que ça donne comme différences, pragmatiquement ? Merci. Ces conseils viennent sans doute d’expériences légèrement douloureuses avec la Testing dans de mauvaises périodes. P.ex. quelques unes des grosses migrations (XFree → Xorg, nouveau Gnome ou nouveau KDE…) ou même parfois des petites rendent Testing ininstallables (certains paquets sont déjà à la nouvelle version mais pas tous → indisponibles) pendant quelques jours. Si on est tombé au mauvais moment, c’est bête… Depuis, ce genre de migrations est bien mieux géré. Et même s’il arrive qu’un ou deux paquets soient ininstallables, un tel événement en Testing est rare (puisqu’en général traité dans Unstable). Ou alors, certains ne voient pas l’intérêt de Testing par rapport à Unstable ; ça arrive… Au delà de cela, pour moi, Testing, c’est pour les systèmes stables lorsque la stable est un peu vieille (en général pour le matériel ou pour un logiciel précis), donc la destination est de passer en Stable dès qu’elle sort. Si on a besoin/envie de tester/utiliser les nouveautés, on peut utiliser Unstable. Et à part le fait qu’à mon avis, une Unstable a besoin d’être mise à jour plus fréquemment, il n’y aurait donc effectivement pas trop d’intérêt à rester en Testing si la stable sort. -- Sylvain Sauvage -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201301181125.27861.sylvain.l.sauv...@free.fr
Re: testing ou unstable
Le vendredi 18 janvier 2013 à 09:30 +0100, Pierre Crescenzo a écrit : Bonjour, En cette période de freeze, je me repose une question qui me revient souvent... J'avais lu un jour une analyse qui conseillait de se positionner en stable ou unstable plutôt qu'en testing. En stable parce qu'elle est stable :-) ou en unstable parce qu'elle n'a pas beaucoup plus de soucis que testing mais avec des actions correctives beaucoup plus rapides. Quelle est votre expérience ? Qu'en pensez-vous ? Merci. Cordialement, [CITATION ALÉATOIRE : Pluie en Novembre, Noël fin décembre. Dicton] -- Pierre Crescenzo mailto:pie...@crescenzo.nom.fr http://www.crescenzo.nom.fr/ Hello, D'expérience, je dirais le contraire : j'ai eu **beaucoup** plus de problèmes avec Unstable qu'avec Testing. Depuis que je suis passé à Testing, je ne rencontre presque plus de gros bug alors que j'en avais au moins un chaque semaine. Aujourd'hui, les seuls que j'ai parfois viennent de mes bidouilles entre versions (j'ai mélangé avec des paquets Unstable et Experimental et ça fout un peu la grouille). Donc globalement, la Testing est très bien, pas aussi fiable que Stable mais presque, les paquets sont déjà passé par le filtre Unstable où les plus gros bugs sont corrigés, surtout aujourd'hui en période de freeze où ce sont surtout des correctifs qui entrent. Bon, on peut se dire que que les versions de logiciels sont quand même un peu vieilles quand on compare à d'autres distros (on est encore à GNOME 3.4 alors que la 3.6 apporte plein de chouettes trucs) mais bon, c'est pas non plus comparable à la stable. Bref, je conseille sans hésiter. Cordialement, -- Guillaume -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1358505764.4896.9.camel@tomoyo
Re: testing ou unstable
Bonjour, Le vendredi 18 janvier 2013, Pierre Crescenzo a écrit... Oui, c'est la définition. :-) Mais je suis plus intéressé par ce que ça donne dans la réalité des faits quotidiens. Les conseils indiquant de ne pas rester en testing ne sont pas si rares et je voudrais avoir des retours d'expérience avant de me lancer éventuellement. As-tu l'expérience de telles configurations ? Qu'est-ce que ça donne comme différences, pragmatiquement ? Merci. Je suis en Testing depuis Lenny qui était, si je me rappelle bien, la Testing de Potatoe. Pour une machine Desktop de travail (développement, administration à distance). Je ne me rappelle que d'un seul souci : quelque chose avec bzip qui bloquait les mises à jour. C'est dire la stabilité de la bestiole. D'un autre côté, je ne suis pas un gars très graphique, et j'utilise WindowMaker comme WM. Ceci explique peut être la stabilité de ma machine. Alors je conseille également Testing pour une machine de bureau. Mais nos serveurs sont tous en Stable. -- jm -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130118110029.GD26672@espinasse
Re: testing ou unstable
Salut, Le 18/01/2013 11:25, Sylvain L. Sauvage a écrit : Le vendredi 18 janvier 2013 à 10:41:03, Pierre Crescenzo a écrit : Bonjour, ’jour, […] Je ne pense pas qu'on puisse s'attendre à ce que la unstable soit plus stable que la testing : c'est certes par elle qu'arrivent les correctifs, mais c'est par elle aussi qu'arrivent les bugs ! Oui, c'est la définition. :-) Mais je suis plus intéressé par ce que ça donne dans la réalité des faits quotidiens. Les conseils indiquant de ne pas rester en testing ne sont pas si rares et je voudrais avoir des retours d'expérience avant de me lancer éventuellement. As-tu l'expérience de telles configurations ? Qu'est-ce que ça donne comme différences, pragmatiquement ? Merci. Ces conseils viennent sans doute d’expériences légèrement douloureuses avec la Testing dans de mauvaises périodes. P.ex. quelques unes des grosses migrations (XFree → Xorg, nouveau Gnome ou nouveau KDE…) ou même parfois des petites rendent Testing ininstallables (certains paquets sont déjà à la nouvelle version mais pas tous → indisponibles) pendant quelques jours. Si on est tombé au mauvais moment, c’est bête… Depuis, ce genre de migrations est bien mieux géré. Et même s’il arrive qu’un ou deux paquets soient ininstallables, un tel événement en Testing est rare (puisqu’en général traité dans Unstable). Ou alors, certains ne voient pas l’intérêt de Testing par rapport à Unstable ; ça arrive… Au delà de cela, pour moi, Testing, c’est pour les systèmes stables lorsque la stable est un peu vieille (en général pour le matériel ou pour un logiciel précis), donc la destination est de passer en Stable dès qu’elle sort. Si on a besoin/envie de tester/utiliser les nouveautés, on peut utiliser Unstable. Et à part le fait qu’à mon avis, une Unstable a besoin d’être mise à jour plus fréquemment, il n’y aurait donc effectivement pas trop d’intérêt à rester en Testing si la stable sort. Je comprends le raisonnement et j'admets qu'il y a, ces derniers temps et indépendamment de la période de freeze, moins de gros soucis dans unstable. Cependant, on n'est toujours pas à l'abri de certains écueils. Il n'y a pas si longtemps que ça, un de mes amis chez qui j'avais installé une sid a pratiquement supprimé tout son système avec un dist-upgrade (ou l'équivalent dans synaptic). Effectivement, il n'aurait pas dû répondre positivement à la proposition de supprimer quelques centaines de paquets… Il m'est également arriver de me retrouver avec un système faisant un kernel panic au boot. Au final, rien de vraiment insurmontable, à condition de savoir booter sur un système de secours, faire un chroot, réinstaller grub ou regénérer un initrd. Au final, tout cela peut être formateur, mais certainement hors de portée d'un simple utilisateur (sans arrière pensée péjorative) ou au moins au delà de ce qu'il peut accepter de faire dans des cas d'utilisation courante. Alors, même si cela peut poser quelques soucis au niveau de la rapidité des mises à jour de sécurité, je conseille plutôt l'utilisation de testing à ceux qui veulent avoir des versions (assez) récentes de la plupart des soft sans prendre trop de risques. Sinon, pour garantir une fiabilité optimale tout en profitant de certaines mises à jour, il y a toujours la possibilité d'une stable avec ses backports (enfin, actuellement, sur un poste de travail, autant partir sur wheezy et ajouter le dépôts des backports au moment de la release officielle). Je pense que c'est une solution satisfaisante pour beaucoup de monde. A+ -- Jean-Jacques -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50f92ebb.2030...@doti.fr
Re: testing ou unstable
On 01/18/2013 09:30 AM, Pierre Crescenzo wrote: Bonjour, En cette période de freeze, je me repose une question qui me revient souvent... J'avais lu un jour une analyse qui conseillait de se positionner en stable ou unstable plutôt qu'en testing. En stable parce qu'elle est stable :-) ou en unstable parce qu'elle n'a pas beaucoup plus de soucis que testing mais avec des actions correctives beaucoup plus rapides. Quelle est votre expérience ? Qu'en pensez-vous ? Merci. Personnellement, je suis toujours resté en testing. J'ai même eu parfois plus de problème en stable qu'en testing. Stable bloque l'évolution de certains programmes au nom du Freeze tout en disant qu'il débeugue ces programmes. Il suffit dans certains cas de passer à la version suivante, version bloquée par le freeze, pour constater que certains bugs majeurs ont été résolus par leurs développeurs. Je sais, Debian ne peut faire autrement, c'est un cercle plus ou moins vicieux... Il faut à un certain moment dire stop et faire comme si on pouvait TOUT stabiliser. C'est une illusion, selon moi, d'après mon expérience. J'ai toujours une stable sur une partition et je compare avec ma testing habituelle en cas de problème. Je constate que jusqu'à maintenant, je ne me suis jamais servi de stable dont l'obsolescence de certains paquets entraîne des problèmes parfois plus gênants que des bugs. Je pense aux noyaux (que je compile régulièrement , 3.7.3 le dernier), au graphisme, au multimédia. Par ailleurs, le fait d'avoir du matériel très récent joue énormément concernant le choix testing ou stable. -- Maderios Art is meant to disturb. Science reassures. L'art est fait pour troubler. La science rassure (Georges Braque) -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50f93318.4030...@gmail.com
Re: testing ou unstable
Pierre Crescenzo, 2013-01-18 10:41+0100: Oui, c'est la définition. :-) Mais je suis plus intéressé par ce que ça donne dans la réalité des faits quotidiens. Les conseils indiquant de ne pas rester en testing ne sont pas si rares et je voudrais avoir des retours d'expérience avant de me lancer éventuellement. As-tu l'expérience de telles configurations ? Qu'est-ce que ça donne comme différences, pragmatiquement ? Merci. Je n'ai encore jamais utilisé entièrement unstable. Chaque fois que j'ai eu des problèmes avec testing, j'ai simplement pris les nouvelles versions des paquets incriminés dans unstable, pour avoir le meilleur des deux mondes. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu | `-'Debian Developer irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy \_ -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/kdbi17$ee2$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: testing ou unstable
Pierre Crescenzo, 2013-01-18 09:30+0100: En cette période de freeze, je me repose une question qui me revient souvent... J'avais lu un jour une analyse qui conseillait de se positionner en stable ou unstable plutôt qu'en testing. En stable parce qu'elle est stable :-) ou en unstable parce qu'elle n'a pas beaucoup plus de soucis que testing mais avec des actions correctives beaucoup plus rapides. Quelle est votre expérience ? Qu'en pensez-vous ? Merci. Allez, le grand jeu : ### Stable ### Version de production fiable et très suivie pour la sécurité, conseillée pour la production et les serveurs. Les Backports peuvent palier à l'obsolescence de certains logiciels. On peut aussi faire un pinning vers Testing dans les deux cas, on perd un peu de la stabilité (version majeure fixée et suivi bugs et sécurité), mais de manière limitée. ### Testing ### Attention, Testing n'est pas du tout une Unstable plus stable, elle est là pour construire la distribution stable grâce aux paquets provenant de Unstable. Dans une période favorable comme la période de freeze actuelle, pas de soucis de fonctionnalité manquante, juste des bugs à corriger avant la version Stable. Par contre, il y a un très gros risque de se retrouver, durant des périodes parfois assez longues, avec une fonctionnalité ou des paquets manquants. Pire, un bug peut traîner plusieurs semaine car jamais corrigé jusqu'à l'intégration de la version supérieure d'un paquet. Donc, en dehors de période favorable, je conseille très fortement le pinning soit vers Stable soit vers Unstable pour ne pas se retrouver coincé. Ça reste une solution viable sur des matériels non pris en charge par Stable ou si on veut vraiment des versions plus récentes avec moins de mises à jour que sur Unstable. Si ce n'est que pour un ou deux logiciels, il vaut mieux rester en stable quitte à utiliser le pinning ou compiler le logiciel à sa version désiré. ### Unstable ### Beaucoup, beaucoup de mises à jour, je la déconseille sur un réseau limité en débit ou volume ce qui peut-être le cas quand on est en déplacement sur une certaine durée avec des points d'accès wifi aléatoires, limités et peu fiables. Prudence et lecture obligatoire des messages lors de mises à jour. On peut installer apt-listbugs pour aider. Éviter de forcer la mise à jour en général, sauf si on sait ce qu'on fait. Possibilité de problèmes importants, essentiellement si on ne respecte pas les règles de prudences. Donc oui pour soi sur son PC, non en production ou pour installer à une personne n'ayant pas un minimum de compétences. Problèmes généralement très vites corrigés contrairement à Testing, donc généralement plus utilisable et ne plantant, à mon avis, pas forcément plus que certaines rolling ou cycle rapide genre Fedora, les paquets de SID étant souvent déclaré stable dans l'upstream (ce qui fait dire à certains trolls avant-gardistes et téméraires que c'est déjà vieux même dans SID). Voilà mes conclusions personnelles, après à toi de faire tes choix et compromis en fonction de tes besoins, usages et envies. Il y a des généralités mais jamais de réponse universelle. -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1358515589.18503.49.camel@azuki.jisui
[Un peu HS.. ou pas !] connaitre les paquets provenant de testing ou unstable ?
Bonjour, Je cherche le moyen de déterminer d'où proviennent les paquetages installés sur ma machine (testing, unstable ou experimental !)... Google n'étant pas mon ami ce soir, je n'ai pas trouvé de réponse concluante... Y-a-t'il une possibilité de le faire simplement ? ++ Mourad -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f1c447f.3020...@nativobject.net
Re: [Un peu HS.. ou pas !] connaitre les paquets provenant de testing ou unstable ?
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:16:47 +0100 Mourad Jaber m...@nativobject.net wrote: Je cherche le moyen de déterminer d'où proviennent les paquetages installés sur ma machine (testing, unstable ou experimental !)... Google n'étant pas mon ami ce soir, Gogol n'a jamais été ton ami, il te le dit mais c'est pour mieux t'entuber, mon enfant - c'est plutôt l'ennemi de la vie privée et des données à caractère personnel; le tout doublé par un double-jeu d'indic des autorités. Y-a-t'il une possibilité de le faire simplement ? Pas que je saches, tu va devoir te taper le listing dans une main, le café dans la deuxième, la pizza dans la troisième et les yeux rivés sur packages.debian.org. -- Imagine there's no heaven... it's easy if you try. -- John Lennon, Imagine -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120122173207.04374938@anubis.defcon1
Re: [Un peu HS.. ou pas !] connaitre les paquets provenant de testing ou unstable ?
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 06:16:47PM +0100, Mourad Jaber wrote: Y-a-t'il une possibilité de le faire simplement ? apt-cache policy package Y. -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120122162007.gq1...@naryves.com
Re: [Un peu HS.. ou pas !] connaitre les paquets provenant de testing ou unstable ?
Le 22 janvier 2012 17:32, Jean-Yves F. Barbier 12u...@gmail.com a écrit : Y-a-t'il une possibilité de le faire simplement ? Pas que je saches, tu va devoir te taper le listing dans une main, le café dans la deuxième, la pizza dans la troisième et les yeux rivés sur packages.debian.org. Je te trouve bien catégorique pour une fois, effectivement je ne vois pas de logiciel qui le fasse mais rien n'empêche de faire un script qui croiserait les données de dpkg --get-selections avec celles de apt-cache policy pkg
Re: [Un peu HS.. ou pas !] connaitre les paquets provenant de testing ou unstable ?
Bonjour, À 2012-01-22T17:38:46+0100, Amanda Hinault hina...@gmail.com écrivit : Je te trouve bien catégorique pour une fois, effectivement je ne vois pas de logiciel qui le fasse Si j'ai bien compris la demande, Synaptic le fait (mais évidemment, ça n'est pas du mode texte). -- Yannick Palanque -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120122180513.1b0c9e14@kafka
Re: [Un peu HS.. ou pas !] connaitre les paquets provenant de testing ou unstable ?
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:38:46 +0100 Amanda Hinault hina...@gmail.com wrote: Pas que je saches, tu va devoir te taper le listing dans une main, le café dans la deuxième, la pizza dans la troisième et les yeux rivés sur packages.debian.org. Je te trouve bien catégorique pour une fois, effectivement je ne vois pas de logiciel qui le fasse mais rien n'empêche de faire un script qui croiserait les données de dpkg --get-selections avec celles de apt-cache policy pkg Impossible: il a déjà un café et une pizza dans les mains! -- That wouldn't be good enough. -- Larry Wall in 199710131621.jaa14...@wall.org -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120122180554.7f1fa0e6@anubis.defcon1
Re: [Un peu HS.. ou pas !] connaitre les paquets provenant de testing ou unstable ?
Bonsoir, Le 22/janv. - 18:16, Mourad Jaber a écrit : Je cherche le moyen de déterminer d'où proviennent les paquetages installés sur ma machine (testing, unstable ou experimental !)... Y-a-t'il une possibilité de le faire simplement ? Avec aptitude, voici quelques recettes pour lister les paquets installé : a) Lister les paquets installés qui ne sont pas dans l'archive stable. Il y aura les paquets installés depuis backports, testing, unstable et les paquet installé à la main.) $ aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, !?archive(stable))' b) Lister les paquets provenant de testing $ aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?archive(testing) !?archive(stable))' c) Lister les paquets provenant de testing mais qui ne sont pas disponible dans stable : $ aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?archive(testing)) !?archive(stable)' d) Lister les paquets ne provenant pas de dépôt Typiquement les paquets téléchargés sur d'endroits divers et installés à la main avec dpkg -i ou les paquets plus disponibles dans les dépôts. $ aptitude search '?obsolete' Ces recettes ont été cherchés justement hier pour nettoyer un serveur. Pour en savoir plus : Search Term Reference / Search patterns : /usr/share/doc/aptitude/html/fr/ch02s04s05.html -- afrinc -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120122171941.ga11...@tortuga.azylum.org
Re: [Un peu HS.. ou pas !] connaitre les paquets provenant de testing ou unstable ?
Le Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:16:47 +0100,
Mourad Jaber m...@nativobject.net a écrit :
Bonjour,
Je cherche le moyen de déterminer d'où proviennent les paquetages
installés sur ma machine (testing, unstable ou experimental !)...
Google n'étant pas mon ami ce soir, je n'ai pas trouvé de réponse
concluante...
Y-a-t'il une possibilité de le faire simplement ?
++
Mourad
bonjour,
voici une idée de solution :
dpkg -l | awk '/ii/ {print $2 $3}' out.txt
apt-cache policy $( cat out.txt |awk '{print $1}') out-2.txt
le reste est de la cuisine ...
slt
bernard
--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists
Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/20120122182833.6588aefe.bernard.schoenac...@free.fr
Re: [Un peu HS.. ou pas !] connaitre les paquets provenant de testing ou unstable ?
Effectivement, ça ressemble bien à ce que je cherche :) ++ Mourad Le 22/01/2012 18:19, angus.fr...@free.fr a écrit : Bonsoir, Le 22/janv. - 18:16, Mourad Jaber a écrit : Je cherche le moyen de déterminer d'où proviennent les paquetages installés sur ma machine (testing, unstable ou experimental !)... Y-a-t'il une possibilité de le faire simplement ? Avec aptitude, voici quelques recettes pour lister les paquets installé : a) Lister les paquets installés qui ne sont pas dans l'archive stable. Il y aura les paquets installés depuis backports, testing, unstable et les paquet installé à la main.) $ aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, !?archive(stable))' b) Lister les paquets provenant de testing $ aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?archive(testing) !?archive(stable))' c) Lister les paquets provenant de testing mais qui ne sont pas disponible dans stable : $ aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?archive(testing)) !?archive(stable)' d) Lister les paquets ne provenant pas de dépôt Typiquement les paquets téléchargés sur d'endroits divers et installés à la main avec dpkg -i ou les paquets plus disponibles dans les dépôts. $ aptitude search '?obsolete' Ces recettes ont été cherchés justement hier pour nettoyer un serveur. Pour en savoir plus : Search Term Reference / Search patterns : /usr/share/doc/aptitude/html/fr/ch02s04s05.html -- afrinc -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f1c4fc7.5040...@nativobject.net
Re: [Un peu HS.. ou pas !] connaitre les paquets provenant de testing ou unstable ?
Le dimanche 22 janvier 2012 à 18:16 +0100, Mourad Jaber a écrit : Bonjour, Je cherche le moyen de déterminer d'où proviennent les paquetages installés sur ma machine (testing, unstable ou experimental !)... Google n'étant pas mon ami ce soir, je n'ai pas trouvé de réponse concluante... Y-a-t'il une possibilité de le faire simplement ? ++ Mourad view /usr/share/doc/aptitude/REA moi@chezmoi # aptitude show -vv mozilla-plugin-vlc Paquet : mozilla-plugin-vlc État: non installé Version : 1.1.13-1 Priorité : optionnel Section : video Responsable : Debian multimedia packages maintainers pkg-multimedia-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org Taille décompressée : 185 k Architecture : amd64 Taille compressée : 47,5 k Nom de fichier : pool/main/v/vlc/mozilla-plugin-vlc_1.1.13-1_amd64.deb Somme MD5 : f589e5358a8056e5373e3d24a49e6b39 Archive: unstable [...] moi@chezmoi # apt-cache madison mozilla-plugin-vlc mozilla-plugin-vlc | 1.1.13-1 | http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ sid/main amd64 Packages vlc | 1.1.13-1 | http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ sid/main Sources -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1327265535.22789.26.ca...@jisui.aranha.ici
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
Bem. vou usar uma mistura de stable + backports, então. só tenho uma dúvida, a seguir. 2009/7/6 Jair jair.custo...@gmail.com: ... ## Pacotes multimidia ## Os repositórios Debian não possuem uma série de codecs e outros pacotes multimídia por serem proprietários, ou seja, ## não terem o código aberto, serem protegidos por copyright e/ou infringirem outras políticas da filosofia Debian. ## Para isso, ainda com o arquivo /etc/apt/sources.list aberto, vamos adicionar as linhas abaixo, referentes ao ## repositório Debian Multimedia: deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-multimedia/ stable main deb-src http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-multimedia/ stable main Qual a relação destes pacotes debian-multimidia com o projeto debian? Fred -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12-07-2009 17:14, Fred Maranhão wrote: Bem. vou usar uma mistura de stable + backports, então. só tenho uma dúvida, a seguir. 2009/7/6 Jair jair.custo...@gmail.com: ... ## Pacotes multimidia ## Os repositórios Debian não possuem uma série de codecs e outros pacotes multimídia por serem proprietários, ou seja, ## não terem o código aberto, serem protegidos por copyright e/ou infringirem outras políticas da filosofia Debian. ## Para isso, ainda com o arquivo /etc/apt/sources.list aberto, vamos adicionar as linhas abaixo, referentes ao ## repositório Debian Multimedia: deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-multimedia/ stable main deb-src http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-multimedia/ stable main Qual a relação destes pacotes debian-multimidia com o projeto debian? O Christian Marillat mantém diversos pacotes não-oficiais relacionados à multimídia dentro do debian-multimedia, ele é um DD mas não há relação oficial ou direta com o projeto. Historicamente os pacotes dele são bem cuidados e o repositório ficou famoso, muitos dos pacotes tem versões oficiais no Debian, mas a versão do Marillat costuma incluir partes controversas relacionadas a patentes e codecs proprietários. Abraço, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREIAAYFAkpaSf0ACgkQCjAO0JDlykaSVwCfaBn4n6RABvHW19CJW9/F1C0V xLMAnioxZxlNHtF4/WIfsfrk48N+nK3R =h0yp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
Em 05-07-2009 21:59, Flamarion Jorge escreveu: cat /etc/apt/preferences Package: * Pin: release a=testing Pin-Priority: 900 Package: * Pin: release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 800 Desta forma, testing tem preferencia, ou seja, se você não passar nenhum parâmetro o sistema vai usar testing, caso queira um pacote mais novo, instale da seguinte maneira. aptitude -t unstable install pacote Creio ser interessante deixar a prioridade do unstable como 50 (não muito próxima de 900). Pois do contrário será baixada muita coisa indevida com um simples aptitude safe-upgrade. Att, Renato -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
ja usei praticamente todas as formas: testing puro, unstable puro, testing+unstable, stable+testing,etc... mas como ja foi falado anteriormente, no seu caso específico creio que a melhor solução é stable + backports meu sources.list ## Repositorio oficial do projeto Debian.org - stable deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian/ stable main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian/ stable main contrib non-free ## Atualizacoes de seguranca deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-security/ stable/updates main contrib deb-src http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-security/ stable/updates main contrib ## Atualizacoes recomendadas deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian/ lenny-proposed-updates main contrib deb-src http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian/ lenny-proposed-updates main contrib ## Atualizacoes para pacotes que mudam com frequencia ## Debian Volatile, um novo repositório oficial da equipe do Debian destinado a pacotes que se atualizam com frequência deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-volatile/ lenny/volatile main contrib deb-src http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-volatile/ lenny/volatile main contrib ## Atualizacoes alternativas para o sistema - backports deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-backports/ lenny-backports main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-backports/ lenny-backports main contrib non-free ## Pacotes multimidia ## Os repositórios Debian não possuem uma série de codecs e outros pacotes multimídia por serem proprietários, ou seja, ## não terem o código aberto, serem protegidos por copyright e/ou infringirem outras políticas da filosofia Debian. ## Para isso, ainda com o arquivo /etc/apt/sources.list aberto, vamos adicionar as linhas abaixo, referentes ao ## repositório Debian Multimedia: deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-multimedia/ stable main deb-src http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-multimedia/ stable main 2009/7/3 Fred Maranhão fred.maran...@gmail.com Gente, A uns anos atrás, numa discussão na lista, eu decidi usar a unstable no meu computador, pois a stable era muito desatualizada e a testing demorava demais para receber correções. Na verdade, a impressão que eu tinha é que a testing era a pior de todas, pois a stable era cuidada pelo povo do projeto debian e a unstable recebia as atualizações dos mantenedores principais. De uns anos para cá, voltei a usar a testing, que achei bem mais cuidada e estava feliz com ela. Mas agora tenho uma nova variável. Instalei o debian testing no laptop da minha mulher, e algumas coisas que demoram a serem corrigidas (ou por incapacidade minha ou por que tenho que esperar o pacote ser corrigido na unstable e descer para a testing) estão incomodando ela. Por isto estava pensando em migrar o meu computador e o dela para o debian unstable. A questão é, será que ela vai ter uma experiência melhor no unstable? Fred PS: o próximo passo é instalar o debian no computador do meu filho :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org -- Jair Custodio da Silva jair.custo...@gmail.com Criptografia e Segurança de Redes e Servidores Linux Programação WEB em PHP/MySQL Chave Criptográfica (Public GnupgID): 0x1A9DAC85 Jabber ID: jaircusto...@jabber.org
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Fred Maranhão escreveu: Gente, A uns anos atrás, numa discussão na lista, eu decidi usar a unstable no meu computador, pois a stable era muito desatualizada e a testing demorava demais para receber correções. Na verdade, a impressão que eu tinha é que a testing era a pior de todas, pois a stable era cuidada pelo povo do projeto debian e a unstable recebia as atualizações dos mantenedores principais. De uns anos para cá, voltei a usar a testing, que achei bem mais cuidada e estava feliz com ela. Mas agora tenho uma nova variável. Instalei o debian testing no laptop da minha mulher, e algumas coisas que demoram a serem corrigidas (ou por incapacidade minha ou por que tenho que esperar o pacote ser corrigido na unstable e descer para a testing) estão incomodando ela. Por isto estava pensando em migrar o meu computador e o dela para o debian unstable. A questão é, será que ela vai ter uma experiência melhor no unstable? Fred PS: o próximo passo é instalar o debian no computador do meu filho :) Sugestão. cat /etc/apt/sources.list ###testing## deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian/ testing main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian/ testing main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/ testing/updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://security.debian.org/ testing/updates main contrib non-free deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org testing main ## Unstable# deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org unstable main cat /etc/apt/preferences Package: * Pin: release a=testing Pin-Priority: 900 Package: * Pin: release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 800 Desta forma, testing tem preferencia, ou seja, se você não passar nenhum parâmetro o sistema vai usar testing, caso queira um pacote mais novo, instale da seguinte maneira. aptitude -t unstable pacote Funciona muito bem aqui pra mim. Quando quero algum pacote mais novo, pego da unstable. Att, - -- Flamarion Jorge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpRTDoACgkQ0SDRnmynUOEnigCdFRtXr3r6yAI3txbbS3dKP0cV 9AcAoJrx4GbyDRgeJ/g3TT0cYgTu2hhd =5DjK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 aptitude -t unstable pacote Corrigindo aptitude -t unstable install pacote Abraços - -- Flamarion Jorge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpRTYcACgkQ0SDRnmynUOGnDwCfSMsldMStGxWvSuybtVwGVIm1 skcAoKVi8e1ecWRACP87ZbSkz/gUJOq5 =HcOP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
Olá! Apenas para completar, porque acho que os posts acima já responderam, não vejo a stable tão desatualizada assim, não é necessário ter a última versão da maioria dos aplicativos para que o seu sistema funcione bem. Assim como a testing de uns tempos para cá está menos instável (maior problema é a quebra do sistema, mas se for cuidadoso nas atualizações, isto não acontece). Com relação a unstable, acredito que seja apenas um pouco mais instável que a testing, mesmo porque grande parte dos pacotes usados na unstable já estão na testing. Eu acredito que o único motivo para um usuário final sair da stable e se aventurar na testing ou unstable seja a necessidade de algum pacote mais recente para algum hardware ou mesmo função nova em algum aplicativo, caso contrário, não há necessidade de correr riscos. Para testes, virtualização é muito mais seguro. Caso queira usar a stable com alguns pacotes da testing ou unstable, ou ainda usar a testing com pacotes da unstable ou mesmo experimental, vou te passar uma dica que vi no planeta debian brasil, ajuda muito na hora de atualizar o sistema com pacotes mesclados da stable, testing, unstable ou experimental: http://blog.kov.eti.br/?p=52. Eu testei aqui e realmente funciona. Eu usava o lenny mas tinha o network-manager do squeeze que é a versão 0.7, tendo a opção de conectar dls e 3g diretamente pelo gnome-network, então eram apenas uns 5 ou 6 pacotes da squeeze no meu lenny. Abraços! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
Em 03-07-2009 18:57, Fred Maranhão escreveu: De uns anos para cá, voltei a usar a testing, que achei bem mais cuidada e estava feliz com ela. Mas agora tenho uma nova variável. Instalei o debian testing no laptop da minha mulher, e algumas coisas que demoram a serem corrigidas (ou por incapacidade minha ou por que tenho que esperar o pacote ser corrigido na unstable e descer para a testing) estão incomodando ela. Por isto estava pensando em migrar o meu computador e o dela para o debian unstable. Você está com a versão Testing e está querendo algo mais Estável instalando a versão Unstable? A solução para o seu caso é: - Instale a versão STABLE (Lenny). - Se quiser algum pacote específico mais recente, instale ele via backports. Att, Renato -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
2009/7/4 Renato S. Yamane yam...@diamondcut.com.br: Em 03-07-2009 18:57, Fred Maranhão escreveu: De uns anos para cá, voltei a usar a testing, que achei bem mais cuidada e estava feliz com ela. Mas agora tenho uma nova variável. Instalei o debian testing no laptop da minha mulher, e algumas coisas que demoram a serem corrigidas (ou por incapacidade minha ou por que tenho que esperar o pacote ser corrigido na unstable e descer para a testing) estão incomodando ela. Por isto estava pensando em migrar o meu computador e o dela para o debian unstable. Você está com a versão Testing e está querendo algo mais Estável instalando a versão Unstable? exatamente. polêmico, isto, né? Mas o meu raciocínio é o seguinte. As coisas quebram na testing e na unstable. Isso é fato. Mas o conserto na unstable vem do upstream e é aplicado rapidamente. E não tão rápido na testing. É como se o objetivo da testing não fosse o presente, e sim um futuro glorioso, quando ela for a menina dos olhos do projeto, quando ela for a stable. A solução para o seu caso é: - Instale a versão STABLE (Lenny). - Se quiser algum pacote específico mais recente, instale ele via backports. como funciona este backports? Att, Renato -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
Fred Maranhão fred.maranhao at gmail.com writes: Por isto estava pensando em migrar o meu computador e o dela para o debian unstable. A questão é, será que ela vai ter uma experiência melhor no unstable? Não faça isso! Tenho o testing no meu micro, no micro da minha filha (10 anos), no micro do meu filho (13 anos) e no micro da minha esposa. Tentei, outro dia, passar meu desktop para unstable e nao foi das melhores experiencias. Primeiro porque eu nao precisa da instavel. Segundo, porque la, as coisas acontecem muito rapidamente e voce pode ter um sistema quebrado por meio dia. Mas, esse meio dia pode ser aquele em que voce nao pode adiar. Assim, prefira a testing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
Eu não uso mais a testing ou unstable, mas certa vez fiz algo meio bizarro, mas evitava que o meu sistema quebrasse. Eu fiz assim, eu usava a testing, então criei uma virtualização da própria testing e atualizava diariamente a virtualização para ver o que acontecia, mas o meu sistema sem virtualização eu atualizava apenas quando tinha testado um pouco os pacotes atualizados, verificando algum grande bug ou quebra do sistema. Então depois de alguns dias, eu atualizava estes pacotes testados. Desta forma o meu sistema testing nunca quebrou, mas o testing virtualizado quebrava pelo menos 1 vez a cada dois meses. Veja esta mensagem do mês passado aqui na lista, a testing removeu pacotes que para um usuário final complicaria a conexão com sua rede ou internet: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-portuguese/2009/06/msg00425.html O problema foi resolvido alguns dias depois. Abraços! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
Fred Maranhão escreveu: Renato S. Yamane escreveu: Fred Maranhão escreveu: De uns anos para cá, voltei a usar a testing, que achei bem mais cuidada e estava feliz com ela. Mas agora tenho uma nova variável. Instalei o debian testing no laptop da minha mulher, e algumas coisas que demoram a serem corrigidas (ou por incapacidade minha ou por que tenho que esperar o pacote ser corrigido na unstable e descer para a testing) estão incomodando ela. Por isto estava pensando em migrar o meu computador e o dela para o debian unstable. Você está com a versão Testing e está querendo algo mais Estável instalando a versão Unstable? exatamente. polêmico, isto, né? Mas o meu raciocínio é o seguinte. As coisas quebram na testing e na unstable. Isso é fato. Mas o conserto na unstable vem do upstream e é aplicado rapidamente. E não tão rápido na testing. Ao invés de optar por ter pacotes quebrados, porque você não opta por utilizar uma versão em que isso NÃO ocorra? :-) As versões testing e unstable são para pessoas que realmente querem testar o Debian, e eu creio que a sua mulher NÃO esteja interessada nisso :-) Ela é uma usuária, e esse perfil de pessoa NÃO quer passar por experiências desagradáveis, como por exemplo ter pacotes quebrados em uma simples atualização. A solução para o seu caso é: - Instale a versão STABLE (Lenny). - Se quiser algum pacote específico mais recente, instale ele via backports. como funciona este backports? São pacotes da Testing direcionados para o Stable. http://www.backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=instructions Att, Renato -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
stable, testing ou unstable
Gente, A uns anos atrás, numa discussão na lista, eu decidi usar a unstable no meu computador, pois a stable era muito desatualizada e a testing demorava demais para receber correções. Na verdade, a impressão que eu tinha é que a testing era a pior de todas, pois a stable era cuidada pelo povo do projeto debian e a unstable recebia as atualizações dos mantenedores principais. De uns anos para cá, voltei a usar a testing, que achei bem mais cuidada e estava feliz com ela. Mas agora tenho uma nova variável. Instalei o debian testing no laptop da minha mulher, e algumas coisas que demoram a serem corrigidas (ou por incapacidade minha ou por que tenho que esperar o pacote ser corrigido na unstable e descer para a testing) estão incomodando ela. Por isto estava pensando em migrar o meu computador e o dela para o debian unstable. A questão é, será que ela vai ter uma experiência melhor no unstable? Fred PS: o próximo passo é instalar o debian no computador do meu filho :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
* Konnichiwa Fred Maranhão-sama: Por isto estava pensando em migrar o meu computador e o dela para o debian unstable. A questão é, será que ela vai ter uma experiência melhor no unstable? Sou meio kamikaze nesse ponto, pois utilizo uma mistura de SID+Experimental. Bom, nas últimas semanas não tenho tido problemas com a distribuição da forma que está. A minha recomendação é que permaneça com a testing, porém corrija os problemas com a unstable: apt-get -t unstable install pacote, isso se vc não quiser ter muitos problemas com a patroa. :) []'s, Still -- Nelson Luiz Campos Engenheiro Eletricista Linux User #89621 UIN 11464303 gnupgID: 55577339 Skype Still_by_Still Keep moving forward. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: stable, testing ou unstable
Fred Maranhão escreveu: Gente, A uns anos atrás, numa discussão na lista, eu decidi usar a unstable no meu computador, pois a stable era muito desatualizada e a testing demorava demais para receber correções. Na verdade, a impressão que eu tinha é que a testing era a pior de todas, pois a stable era cuidada pelo povo do projeto debian e a unstable recebia as atualizações dos mantenedores principais. De uns anos para cá, voltei a usar a testing, que achei bem mais cuidada e estava feliz com ela. Mas agora tenho uma nova variável. Instalei o debian testing no laptop da minha mulher, e algumas coisas que demoram a serem corrigidas (ou por incapacidade minha ou por que tenho que esperar o pacote ser corrigido na unstable e descer para a testing) estão incomodando ela. Por isto estava pensando em migrar o meu computador e o dela para o debian unstable. A questão é, será que ela vai ter uma experiência melhor no unstable? Fred PS: o próximo passo é instalar o debian no computador do meu filho :) eu não acho que a stable seja tão desatualizada quanto antes, eu mesmo usava testing antes do lenny ser lançado como stable, hoje uso stable e não acho que tenha tantos problemas com isso pois prefiro ter um sistema funcionando sem dores de cabeça, do que vir a ter alguns problemas por conta de querer um sistema mais atualizado, sendo que o que tem na stable já me atende. hoje as versões dos programas na stable, me atende satisfatoriamente. -- ## # Ricardo Esdra # ## # linux user n° 446011 # ## -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Rodolfo Medina rodolfo.med...@gmail.com wrote: I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? Excuse the basicness of my question, thanks for any reply Rodolfo You have a lot of good advice to go on. I just wanted to add one more thing to think about, which may or may not be an issue for you. For a time I ran Sid (unstable) and I found the pace of updates somewhat exhausting. The someone more relaxed pace of testing updates (currently, testing is Squeeze) was more to my liking. Of course, stable (currently, Lenny) only gets security updates from here on, so the pace is very relaxed there. :-) Many people have no problem with doing updates daily or nearly that frequently. I don't like to be updating quite so often, and I don't like it taking very long when I do it. Sid always has a lot of updates ... always. You have to decide for you yourself what you're most comfortable with. I have been using Lenny for about a year, ever since I dropped down from Sid, and never had any problems. But I will be sticking with Lenny until Squeeze seems to be settling into a groove. I don't think right now is the ideal time for most of us who aren't pretty advanced users to be messing with the testing or unstable branches. Michael M. -- Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. --Thomas Jefferson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
Michael M. Moore writes: Many people have no problem with doing updates daily or nearly that frequently. I don't like to be updating quite so often, and I don't like it taking very long when I do it. Sid always has a lot of updates ... always. Why would the mere fact that some DD has uploaded a new version of a package to Sid compel you to install it? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 1:58 PM, John Hasler jhas...@debian.org wrote: Michael M. Moore writes: Many people have no problem with doing updates daily or nearly that frequently. I don't like to be updating quite so often, and I don't like it taking very long when I do it. Sid always has a lot of updates ... always. Why would the mere fact that some DD has uploaded a new version of a package to Sid compel you to install it? -- Because it's there, of course. :-) It's not that I felt compelled to install every new package as it showed up, but I did feel a bit more pressure to perform more frequent updates than I wanted to. With Lenny (when it was testing), most of the time I updated once a week, except when I wanted to install something new, then I'd go ahead and update everything while I was installing the new package because there usually wasn't that much that needed updating. The weekly updates didn't usually take very long, some weeks more than others. (OO.org, of course, always being a large download.) With Sid, waiting a week between updates meant loads of new versions, and even updating mid-week when I was installing something new meant a lot of updates. I have a moderate DSL connection, by no means top-tier and not as speedy as cable. I get impatient, but yes, I do also feel compelled to install updates when I see them there and I'm already installing something else anyway. Sometimes you have to, in order to install what you want. Anyway, I'm just more comfortable with testing -- not saying it's better and everyone who doesn't want stable should use testing rather than unstable, just saying it's better for me. Generally, it gets newish stuff at a good clip, with the occasional package lagging behind here or there; it has security support; it's not as fast a moving target as unstable. Michael M. -- Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. --Thomas Jefferson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
On 2009-02-17_13:02:38, Rodolfo Medina wrote: I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? Excuse the basicness of my question, thanks for any reply Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net writes: Rodolfo, I have a different take on this issue. Rather than discuss the relative merits of stable, testing, I think you should consider the merits of lenny, squeeze. [...] Thanks for your contribution. But, if I understand well, the `unstable' option is excluded from your point of view, that only considers the alternative between stable and testing. Rodolfo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 06:13:12PM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: On 2009-02-17_13:02:38, Rodolfo Medina wrote: I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? Excuse the basicness of my question, thanks for any reply Rodolfo Rodolfo, I have a different take on this issue. Rather than discuss the relative merits of stable, testing, I think you should consider the merits of lenny, squeeze. Using code names (lenny, squeeze, etc.) allows you to choose when big changes in your system happen. I would not run testing during the next several weeks because there was a freeze on moving packages from unstable into testing in preparation for the official release of lenny. As soon as lenny became stable, the freeze was lifted and all sorts of flaky stuff that the release manager wouldn't let into a product that was about to be released has come flooding into testing. The point is that the stability of testing is time dependent. Right after a release it can be somewhat unstable. For a _long_ duration before a release, it is quite stable, and much more modern than the official stable. I always use code names in my sources.list. That way I am never hit with a bunch of changes right after a release. In a little while, after the flood of held-back packages abates, I will dist-upgrade to squeeze. Or, if there is a persistent flood of questions about new packages in squeeze on debian-user, I will defer the dist-upgrade until things settle down. I agree with this policy whole-heartedly. I just found out that I had a few etch machines that had 'stable' in the sources.list. PITA. My new standard practice for my desktop machines is to upgrade to the next version when the green line drops below the blue line on this graph: http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ Obviously, the green and blue lines are at roughly the same place right now, because squeeze is just a copy of lenny. But give it a few weeks and the green line will go rocketing up. It used to be that I'd upgrade once the RC number got low enough (around 300 for my sarge-etch upgrade), but now they're tracking stable RC bugs as well, which makes it easier. Cheers, -- Eric Gerlach, Network Administrator Federation of Students University of Waterloo p: (519) 888-4567 x36329 e: egerl...@feds.uwaterloo.ca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
Rodolfo Medina wrote: I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? Go with testing. Packages don't make it into testing unless they've gone a week without a showstopping bug, IIRC. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
testing or unstable?
I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? Excuse the basicness of my question, thanks for any reply Rodolfo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? Excuse the basicness of my question, thanks for any reply Rodolfo I have been using testing for years with few problems, if that is any indication. I know there are 'safe' ways to get apps from other releases and mix 'em in, but I forget the details because I do it so seldom. Martin Krafft's book is very helpful in this area (and others!). Glenn +-+ Glenn Becker - burni...@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org +-+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
Rodolfo Medina escribió: I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? It depends on the main using of your installation. You need to think if it is a critical production server, non critical server or personal using. I think your talking about personal use. For first option you need to think on a stable version, for the second maybe unestable if you need the new features and for personal use you could think in unestable version. For my laptop (two years old), I will install the new lenny release but it will be changing to an unestable version... :D Excuse the basicness of my question, thanks for any reply Rodolfo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 01:02:38PM +, Rodolfo Medina wrote: I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? I look at stable and testing and unstable so I have access to all the packages (also to experimental as well), but I use pinning cat /etc/apt/preferences package: * pin: release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 100 package: * pin: release a=experimental Pin-Priority: 50 which means it will try to install testing in preference to stable, but will only show me options for unstable (and experimental). some times dependancies cross over between unstable and testing Excuse the basicness of my question, thanks for any reply Rodolfo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org -- 17th Rule of Friendship: A friend will refrain from telling you he picked up the same amount of life insurance coverage you did for half the price when yours is noncancellable. -- Esquire, May 1977 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: testing or unstable?
On 02/17/2009 07:02 AM, Rodolfo Medina wrote: I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? Excuse the basicness of my question, thanks for any reply Which do you need more, stability or modernity? IOW, job or home? I've been running Unstable for approx 5 years, with *very* few problems. But there have been some. Like when X was broken for 4 days! (Fortunately, I had migrated my email to a local IMAP store, away from mbox files specific to Evolution. Thus, I was able to use mutt from the console to read email.) Another example: this week, Sid is upgrading to GNOME 2.24 and during this period, there will be breakages. Thus, I won't be upgrading until next week when things will have hopefully settled down. These big issues don't happen often, though. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
Rodolfo Medina wrote: I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? All my non-critical work stations run unstable. This way I get the newest stuff. I tried to run testing for a while, but when bugs creep in, it sometimes took two weeks for them to creep out. With unstable, I run the risk of bugs creeping in more often, but they also tend to creep out within a day. And the unstable branch is still more stable (yes, I know, I'm mixing the meanings of the terms) than Windows. I think in about ten years I've only been bitten once by a serious bug, and even that worked itself out in about two days. (Just stagger the updates of your various boxes, so you always have at least one box that doesn't get horked.) -- Kent West ))) Westing Peacefully - http://kentwest.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
Kent West wrote: Rodolfo Medina wrote: I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? All my non-critical work stations run unstable. This way I get the newest stuff. I tried to run testing for a while, but when bugs creep in, it sometimes took two weeks for them to creep out. With unstable, I run the risk of bugs creeping in more often, but they also tend to creep out within a day. And the unstable branch is still more stable (yes, I know, I'm mixing the meanings of the terms) than Windows. I think in about ten years I've only been bitten once by a serious bug, and even that worked itself out in about two days. (Just stagger the updates of your various boxes, so you always have at least one box that doesn't get horked.) +1 I also have several boxes running unstable (including my main work machine). I've been doing this for years. In general testing will have important things broken for longer periods of time (due to delays in dependencies bubbling down from unstable). Kent's advice above is very good. I also highly recommend installing apt-listbugs and reading the output (and possibly excluding some packages based on bugs that might affect you) when upgrading. ~c -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
Rodolfo Medina wrote: I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? I have been using Testing without any major problem (during all the Lenny cycle), however this recent message from the security team might advocates in favor of Sid, look it up to make an enlightened decision: http://lists.debian.org/debian-testing-security-announce/2008/12/msg00019.html Tom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
Hi, On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 01:02:38PM +, Rodolfo Medina wrote: ... so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? Excuse the basicness of my question, thanks for any reply This is deep question :-) There are several factors: what you want by doing this? security, stability, newness, ... What kind of timing are we in now? Just after new release: stable (for 1-2 month from now) After security service for testing reactivated: testing (or unstable if you want newer) After freeze: testing/unstable Really, difference is small. I will run unstable in 1 month. But since you are asking here, I recommend to be a bit conservative and stick to what I wrote above. More detailed information in here; http://people.debian.org/~osamu/pub/getwiki/html/ch03.en.html#debianarchivebasics Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:43:24 -0500 charlie derr cd...@simons-rock.edu wrote: Hello charlie, testing will have important things broken for longer periods of time (due to delays in dependencies bubbling down from unstable). I've only had one problem in four years of using Testing; ALSA went belly up for a few days. With the rate of improvement/bug-fixing in Unstable, major faults rarely get to Testing. Such is my experience, anyway. -- Regards _ / ) The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent Is she really going out with him? New Rose - The Damned signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: testing or unstable?
On 2009-02-17_13:02:38, Rodolfo Medina wrote: I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? Excuse the basicness of my question, thanks for any reply Rodolfo Rodolfo, I have a different take on this issue. Rather than discuss the relative merits of stable, testing, I think you should consider the merits of lenny, squeeze. Using code names (lenny, squeeze, etc.) allows you to choose when big changes in your system happen. I would not run testing during the next several weeks because there was a freeze on moving packages from unstable into testing in preparation for the official release of lenny. As soon as lenny became stable, the freeze was lifted and all sorts of flaky stuff that the release manager wouldn't let into a product that was about to be released has come flooding into testing. The point is that the stability of testing is time dependent. Right after a release it can be somewhat unstable. For a _long_ duration before a release, it is quite stable, and much more modern than the official stable. I always use code names in my sources.list. That way I am never hit with a bunch of changes right after a release. In a little while, after the flood of held-back packages abates, I will dist-upgrade to squeeze. Or, if there is a persistent flood of questions about new packages in squeeze on debian-user, I will defer the dist-upgrade until things settle down. lenny, and squeeze are not the same as stable and testing. They change at different times. Right now squeeze is rather unstable. Right now, people who were running stable before the release are confronted with a whole bunch of software that is new-to-them. Many of them may be unable to deal with the learning _now_. They could have chosen the time of the transition by running etch until they are ready to spend some time on playing with a new toy. When they are ready, they point sources.list to lenny. stable and testing are for developers. etch, lenny, and squeeze are for timid users, like me. -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: testing or unstable?
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 07:02:38 Rodolfo Medina wrote: I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable? All of it! Example /etc/apt/preferences: Package: * Pin: release a=stable Pin-Priority: 900 Package: * Pin: release a=lenny-backports Pin-Priority: 800 Package: * Pin: release a=testing Pin-Priority: 700 Package: * Pin: release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 500 Package: * Pin: release a=experimental Pin-Priority: 300 Example /etc/apt/sources.list: # Debian deb http://127.0.0.1:/debianstable main contrib non-free deb-src http://127.0.0.1:/debianstable main contrib non-free deb http://127.0.0.1:/debiantesting main contrib non-free deb-src http://127.0.0.1:/debiantesting main contrib non-free deb http://127.0.0.1:/debianunstablemain contrib non-free deb-src http://127.0.0.1:/debianunstablemain contrib non-free deb http://127.0.0.1:/debianexperimentalmain contrib non-free deb-src http://127.0.0.1:/debianexperimentalmain contrib non-free # Security deb http://127.0.0.1:/debian-security stable/updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://127.0.0.1:/debian-security stable/updates main contrib non-free deb http://127.0.0.1:/debian-security testing/updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://127.0.0.1:/debian-security testing/updates main contrib non-free # Volatile deb http://127.0.0.1:/debian-volatile stable/volatile main contrib non-free deb-src http://127.0.0.1:/debian-volatile stable/volatile main contrib non-free # Backports deb http://127.0.0.1:/debian-backports lenny-backports main contrib non-free deb-src http://127.0.0.1:/debian-backports lenny-backports main contrib non-free # Multimedia deb http://127.0.0.1:/debian-multimedia stable main deb-src http://127.0.0.1:/debian-multimedia stable main deb http://127.0.0.1:/debian-multimedia testing main deb-src http://127.0.0.1:/debian-multimedia testing main deb http://127.0.0.1:/debian-multimedia unstablemain deb-src http://127.0.0.1:/debian-multimedia unstablemain deb http://127.0.0.1:/debian-multimedia experimentalmain deb-src http://127.0.0.1:/debian-multimedia experimentalmain Example /etc/approx/approx.conf: # Here are some examples of remote repository mappings. # See http://www.debian.org/mirror/list for mirror sites. debian http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian debian-security http://security.debian.org/debian-security debian-volatile http://volatile.debian.org/debian-volatile debian-backportshttp://www.backports.org/debian debian-multimedia http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ # The following are the default parameter values, so there is # no need to uncomment them unless you want a different value. # See approx.conf(5) for details. $interface lo #$port $max_wait 30 #$max_rate unlimited #$user approx #$group approx #$syslogdaemon #$pdiffstrue #$verbose false #$debug false -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
pulseaudio: working in Testing and Unstable
Hello, Just restarting this discussion again. I had earlier written about how pulseaudio was a pita when installing on Debian. Well, since I have had an opportunity to install it on Ubuntu and get it working. After that experience, I revisited it on Debain Testing, and followed the same steps and it worked great! Next, I was able to make it work on Debain Unstable as well. Now youtube is working, BBC vidoes are working, skype is working, etc. Haven't tried audacity yet. I can change the output device from pulseaudio's device chooser. The applet is working nicely in KDE. However, in KDE's sound system, ESD needs to be selected for pulseaudio to work. Just my few cents. -- Please reply to this list only. I read this list on its corresponding newsgroup on gmane.org. Replies sent to my email address are just filtered to a folder in my mailbox and get periodically deleted without ever having been read. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pasaje de testing a unstable
Estimados listeros: Hace ya tres años que vengo corriendo sobre testing en diversos equipos (sarge y etch) sin mayores inconvenientes, hasta que hace una semana en uno de ellos, específicamente en el que uso en la oficina en mi trabajo diario, pasé a unstable, o sea, sid. El equipo es un ASRock P4VM800 con un procesador Intel Celeron D 2,13 Ghz, 1 Gb RAM, con rígido en cuatro particiones, una para WinXP de 10 Gb (desgraciadamente hay un programa que debo usar y no puedo ni siquiera emular por wine), una /home de 45 Gb (40% libre), una / (raíz) de 20 Gb (65% libre) y una swap de 2 Gb. La migración fue un éxito, salvando que tuve que actualizar y compilar el driver OpenChrome para la placa de video VIA S3 UniChrome Pro, que no viene soportada para 1024x768 a 75/85 Hz en la distribución, y el sincronismo a frecuencias más bajas me revienta los ojos. El sistema funciona muy estable, sin ningún inconveniente por colgadas a la fecha, que es apenas una semana de uso. El arranque del sistema me parece que es similar, pero al utilizar las aplicaciones sobre el escritorio KDE, que es el que uso, me parece que: 1 - Demoran más en cargar. 2 - El bajado a disco, cuando uno guarda los archivos de trabajo, es más lento. 3 - Open Office sobre todo, cuando abre archivos, si bien no se empaca, a veces con las hojas de cálculo tarda una enormidad. Las preguntas son: ¿Es mi apreciación subjetiva o el sistema está ralentizado? ¿Es algo que pueda considerase normal? Sé que los paquetes sid son más nuevos, pero, ¿son más pesados? Esto es algo que no me parece que sea, dado tamaño de los mismos. Reconozco que las preguntas son un poco retóricas y tal vez MUY SUBJETIVAS, pero lo que quiero saber fundamentalmente, es si lo que CREO que sucede es posible, o estoy salteando algún paso no documentado en la migración a esta rama. O bien mi subconsciente tenía otras expectativas. Muchas gracias. Javier. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Pasaje de testing a unstable
El 17/01/08, JAP [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Estimados listeros: Hace ya tres años que vengo corriendo sobre testing en diversos equipos (sarge y etch) sin mayores inconvenientes, hasta que hace una semana en uno de ellos, específicamente en el que uso en la oficina en mi trabajo diario, pasé a unstable, o sea, sid. El equipo es un ASRock P4VM800 con un procesador Intel Celeron D 2,13 Ghz, 1 Gb RAM, con rígido en cuatro particiones, una para WinXP de 10 Gb (desgraciadamente hay un programa que debo usar y no puedo ni siquiera emular por wine), una /home de 45 Gb (40% libre), una / (raíz) de 20 Gb (65% libre) y una swap de 2 Gb. La migración fue un éxito, salvando que tuve que actualizar y compilar el driver OpenChrome para la placa de video VIA S3 UniChrome Pro, que no viene soportada para 1024x768 a 75/85 Hz en la distribución, y el sincronismo a frecuencias más bajas me revienta los ojos. El sistema funciona muy estable, sin ningún inconveniente por colgadas a la fecha, que es apenas una semana de uso. El arranque del sistema me parece que es similar, pero al utilizar las aplicaciones sobre el escritorio KDE, que es el que uso, me parece que: 1 - Demoran más en cargar. 2 - El bajado a disco, cuando uno guarda los archivos de trabajo, es más lento. 3 - Open Office sobre todo, cuando abre archivos, si bien no se empaca, a veces con las hojas de cálculo tarda una enormidad. Las preguntas son: ¿Es mi apreciación subjetiva o el sistema está ralentizado? ¿Es algo que pueda considerase normal? Sé que los paquetes sid son más nuevos, pero, ¿son más pesados? Esto es algo que no me parece que sea, dado tamaño de los mismos. Reconozco que las preguntas son un poco retóricas y tal vez MUY SUBJETIVAS, pero lo que quiero saber fundamentalmente, es si lo que CREO que sucede es posible, o estoy salteando algún paso no documentado en la migración a esta rama. O bien mi subconsciente tenía otras expectativas. Muchas gracias. Javier. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hola! Yo inestable sólo la probé una vez, y me duró poco porque no recuerdo que rotura de paquetes tuve que se desastró todo y decidí reinstalar pero volviendo a testing. Eso si, lo que dices de ralentizar a lo mejor puede ser por el hecho de que son paquetes que aún no tienen muy probados, y entonces por eso te pasa eso. No obstante yo estoy en testing y últimamente vengo notando ralentizaciones al cargar, al abrir algunas aplicaciones que antes se abrían más rápido... También supongo que influirá el ir acumulando tiempo de uso con archivos perdidos, configuraciones residuales... Mira por ejemplo, desde hace unos días en las aplicaciones que funcionan en Flash los acentos no los puedo escribir correctamente, y sin embargo no se ha actualizado nada de flash, pero alguna otra actualización no le habrá gustado al plugin jeje. Debian está en constante avance, y en inestable para qué contarte. Un saludo y suerte -- --- .: Agua Para Todos, España sólo hay una :. Decídle al Duque que agradecemos sus palabras, pero este es un Tercio español
Re: Fwd: Pasaje de testing a unstable
dayer escribió: El 17/01/08, JAP [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Estimados listeros: Hace ya tres años que vengo corriendo sobre testing en diversos equipos (sarge y etch) sin mayores inconvenientes, hasta que hace una semana en uno de ellos, especÃficamente en el que uso en la oficina en mi trabajo diario, pasé a unstable, o sea, sid. El equipo es un ASRock P4VM800 con un procesador Intel Celeron D 2,13 Ghz, 1 Gb RAM, con rÃgido en cuatro particiones, una para WinXP de 10 Gb (desgraciadamente hay un programa que debo usar y no puedo ni siquiera emular por wine), una /home de 45 Gb (40% libre), una / (raÃz) de 20 Gb (65% libre) y una swap de 2 Gb. La migración fue un éxito, salvando que tuve que actualizar y compilar el driver OpenChrome para la placa de video VIA S3 UniChrome Pro, que no viene soportada para 1024x768 a 75/85 Hz en la distribución, y el sincronismo a frecuencias más bajas me revienta los ojos. El sistema funciona muy estable, sin ningún inconveniente por colgadas a la fecha, que es apenas una semana de uso. El arranque del sistema me parece que es similar, pero al utilizar las aplicaciones sobre el escritorio KDE, que es el que uso, me parece que: 1 - Demoran más en cargar. 2 - El bajado a disco, cuando uno guarda los archivos de trabajo, es más lento. 3 - Open Office sobre todo, cuando abre archivos, si bien no se empaca, a veces con las hojas de cálculo tarda una enormidad. Las preguntas son: ¿Es mi apreciación subjetiva o el sistema está ralentizado? ¿Es algo que pueda considerase normal? Sé que los paquetes sid son más nuevos, pero, ¿son más pesados? Esto es algo que no me parece que sea, dado tamaño de los mismos. Reconozco que las preguntas son un poco retóricas y tal vez MUY SUBJETIVAS, pero lo que quiero saber fundamentalmente, es si lo que CREO que sucede es posible, o estoy salteando algún paso no documentado en la migración a esta rama. O bien mi subconsciente tenÃa otras expectativas. Muchas gracias. Javier. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hola! Yo inestable sólo la probé una vez, y me duró poco porque no recuerdo que rotura de paquetes tuve que se desastró todo y decidà reinstalar pero volviendo a testing. Me parece solución muy típica de Redmont; pero a veces no hay más remedio. Eso si, lo que dices de ralentizar a lo mejor puede ser por el hecho de que son paquetes que aún no tienen muy probados, y entonces por eso te pasa eso. No obstante yo estoy en testing y últimamente vengo notando ralentizaciones al cargar, al abrir algunas aplicaciones que antes se abrÃan más rápido... También supongo que influirá el ir acumulando tiempo de uso con archivos perdidos, configuraciones residuales... Uso cada tanto gtkorphan; deja todo impecable y me purga toda configuración, libreria y/o archivo inútil. Mira por ejemplo, desde hace unos dÃas en las aplicaciones que funcionan en Flash los acentos no los puedo escribir correctamente, y sin embargo no se ha actualizado nada de flash, pero alguna otra actualización no le habrá gustado al plugin jeje. Debian está en constante avance, y en inestable para qué contarte. Un saludo y suerte -- --- .: Agua Para Todos, España sólo hay una :. DecÃdle al Duque que agradecemos sus palabras, pero este es un Tercio español -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pasaje de testing a unstable
El Jueves 17 Enero 2008 11:50:32 JAP escribió: Aupa Soy usuario de Sid desde hace muchos años, y creo que si son un puntillo subjetivas tus preguntas. Las preguntas son: ¿Es mi apreciación subjetiva o el sistema está ralentizado? No sé como has hecho la migración, espero que con dist-upgrade... pero es factible que tengas paquetes o configuraciones antiguas. Y puede que no este afinado como para sacarle todo el partido. Pero es eso... ufff pues puede que tu sid si... la mia no, creo que anda fina. Lo digo por que yo no noto esa relentización pero también le he metido tiempo a afinar el sistema. Ten en cuenta además los grandes saltos de lenny a sid... gcc, etc, etc. ¿Es algo que pueda considerase normal? El problema es que eso es una pregunta subjetiva. En mi opinión no, no tiene porque ir mas lenta una Sid frente a una Lenny... creo que gran parte de la respuesta es depende de como este configurado el sistema. Sé que los paquetes sid son más nuevos, pero, ¿son más pesados? Esto es algo que no me parece que sea, dado tamaño de los mismos. No, no son más pesados, de hecho en algunos casos son menos pesados que los de lenny. Reconozco que las preguntas son un poco retóricas y tal vez MUY SUBJETIVAS, pero lo que quiero saber fundamentalmente, es si lo que CREO que sucede es posible, o estoy salteando algún paso no documentado en la migración a esta rama. Subjetivamente hablando :) pues es posible que tu sistema ande mas lento, mas pesado que otro (comparando Sid y Sid) todo depende de hasta que punto esta bien configurado y afinado uno u otro. O bien mi subconsciente tenía otras expectativas. Bueno eso pasa con el subconsciente XD Un saludo BasaBuru
Re: Pasaje de testing a unstable
BasaBuru escribió: El Jueves 17 Enero 2008 11:50:32 JAP escribió: Aupa Soy usuario de Sid desde hace muchos años, y creo que si son un puntillo subjetivas tus preguntas. Las preguntas son: ¿Es mi apreciación subjetiva o el sistema está ralentizado? No sé como has hecho la migración, espero que con dist-upgrade... pero es factible que tengas paquetes o configuraciones antiguas. Fue hecho con dist-upgrade. Y puede que no este afinado como para sacarle todo el partido. Pero es eso... ufff pues puede que tu sid si... la mia no, creo que anda fina. Lo digo por que yo no noto esa relentización pero también le he metido tiempo a afinar el sistema. Ten en cuenta además los grandes saltos de lenny a sid... gcc, etc, etc. Está todo actualizado. ¿Es algo que pueda considerase normal? El problema es que eso es una pregunta subjetiva. En mi opinión no, no tiene porque ir mas lenta una Sid frente a una Lenny... creo que gran parte de la respuesta es depende de como este configurado el sistema. Sé que los paquetes sid son más nuevos, pero, ¿son más pesados? Esto es algo que no me parece que sea, dado tamaño de los mismos. No, no son más pesados, de hecho en algunos casos son menos pesados que los de lenny. Reconozco que las preguntas son un poco retóricas y tal vez MUY SUBJETIVAS, pero lo que quiero saber fundamentalmente, es si lo que CREO que sucede es posible, o estoy salteando algún paso no documentado en la migración a esta rama. Subjetivamente hablando :) pues es posible que tu sistema ande mas lento, mas pesado que otro (comparando Sid y Sid) todo depende de hasta que punto esta bien configurado y afinado uno u otro. O bien mi subconsciente tenía otras expectativas. Bueno eso pasa con el subconsciente XD Un saludo BasaBuru Bien. Haré dpkg-reconfigure cada vez que pesque algún programa que me parezca lento. Y trataré que mi subconsciente no sea tan ansioso. Cada cambio de rama siempre me ha dado una pila de satisfacciones y he encontrado tantas mejoras, que tal vez esperaba más de los que me dio en esta semana. Veré en el futuro cómo anda. Pero me estoy oliendo que más que de Debian sid, el problema es de OpenOffice quee stá en sid, pues le estoy encontrando algunas perlitas que la versión que está en lenny no las tiene. Muchas gracias Javier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
package from unstable to testing + tracking testing and unstable
Hello,
I wanted to try fastcgi with either apache or lighttp, under etch. And
on my way I learn more on using debian.
As libapache2-mod-fastcgi, lighttpd seemed to be unknown from aptitude,
I turned my browser to the http://packages.debian.org/testing which has
the list.
* no version of libapache{,2}-mod-fastcgi is available
* no version of lighttpd is available
* also the fastcgi module is available under sarge for version 1 and 2
of apache
* lighttpd, libapache{,2}-mod-fastcgi are available in unstable
To understand why all that, I checked http://bugs.debian.org to find out
that :
* lighttpd : #383922: fastcgi with php4-cgi leads to segmentation fault
The description of the problem plus the discussion make me think that it
is worth a try. I won't be using php4 anyway.
* libapache2-mod-fastcgi : #343514: SEGV due to NULL pointer...
Again, reading the discussion, i was glad to know that the last version
of the package corrected the bug and was uploaded three days agovto
unstable.
Debian is cool because it is transparent, you can get answers. I now
have new questions:
* how will the libapache2-mod-fastcgi land in testing?
* how can I tell aptitude to install only that specific module from
unstable? (by reading
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch-package.en.html, I learnt
that the man from apt-preferences has the answer)
good evening
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: package from unstable to testing + tracking testing and unstable
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 01:47:26AM +0100, Rob Wilco wrote: Hello, Debian is cool because it is transparent, you can get answers. I now Hi Rob, that is one of the founding prinipals of Debian - dont hide stuff from our user: 'Open' bugs, 'Open' source, etc. If only this point could get made in a persusaive way to the windows-using people and why it is better. One can only dream. have new questions: * how will the libapache2-mod-fastcgi land in testing? all bugs (more or less) get fixed and the resulting package is sent into unstable. It gets user tested. And goes into testing 10 days later. more or less. This is dependant upon more factors which can make it take less time or more time. Ask if you want more gorey details :-) * how can I tell aptitude to install only that specific module from unstable? (by reading http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch-package.en.html, I learnt that the man from apt-preferences has the answer) One way is to use the '-t' flag. e.g. apt-get -t testing bash this will install bash but using only packages from 'testing'. I am not sure if this should be 'testing' or 'etch' or if there is a differnce. so YMMV and try both. Cheers, Kev -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Problem with xmms in testing and unstable
2006. August 4. 18:38, Dougie Nisbet: I've noticed a problem after doing a dist-upgrade to testing. xmms now hangs occasionally. It's rather difficult to pin down but it appears to be when there is a song change. What happens is that when moving to the next song, the xmms display freezes, but the song plays until the end, at which point it stops. I can't click on any of the controls and it needs a kill to close it. It sometimes runs for a few hours if left alone. It's usually when I'm skipping 'B' through a tracklist that the freeze happens. As I say, it doesn't happen under sarge. I've been closing down a few of the plug-ins to see if that makes any difference but no joy. Dougie Hi! I had a similar problem with xmms. I'm using the crossfade plugin and after a few xmms upgrades it started to hang occasionally. I had to recompile the crossfade plugin with the xmms-dev package and now it works fine. HTH, Daniel -- LeVA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with xmms in testing and unstable
LeVA wrote: I had a similar problem with xmms. I'm using the crossfade plugin and after a few xmms upgrades it started to hang occasionally. I had to recompile the crossfade plugin with the xmms-dev package and now it works fine. HTH, Daniel Thanks for the tip. I've just checked and I don't have the crossfade plugin. But I think I'll remove all the plugins anyway and see if that fixes it, then renstall them one at a time and see what happens. dougie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problem with xmms in testing and unstable
I've noticed a problem after doing a dist-upgrade to testing. xmms now hangs occasionally. It's rather difficult to pin down but it appears to be when there is a song change. What happens is that when moving to the next song, the xmms display freezes, but the song plays until the end, at which point it stops. I can't click on any of the controls and it needs a kill to close it. It sometimes runs for a few hours if left alone. It's usually when I'm skipping 'B' through a tracklist that the freeze happens. As I say, it doesn't happen under sarge. I've been closing down a few of the plug-ins to see if that makes any difference but no joy. Dougie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
developpement, testing ou unstable?
Salut liste, Je suis en train de développer un ERP vertical, et je n'ai pas très bien compris pourquoi pratiquement tout le monde fait cela sous unstable. Cest sans doute une question de nom, mais j'avais l'impression que testing était plus stable que unstable??? Jean-Yves -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.net/?DebianFrench Vous pouvez aussi ajouter le mot ``spam'' dans vos champs From et Reply-To: To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: developpement, testing ou unstable?
Samedi 8 juillet 2006, 19:36:16 CEST, Jean-Yves F. Barbier a écrit : Salut liste, 'lut, Je suis en train de développer un ERP vertical, et je n'ai pas très bien compris pourquoi pratiquement tout le monde fait cela sous unstable. Je suppose que tu veux dire « tout le monde développe en unstable », et non pas « tout le monde développe un ERP vertical en unstable » ;o) Cest sans doute une question de nom, mais j'avais l'impression que testing était plus stable que unstable??? Pourquoi unstable ? Parce que c'est la version dite « de développement » et que l'on confond développement de la distribution et usage de la machine ;o) Notons que si on développe des paquets Debian, il est logique de travailler en unstable : c'est étudié pour (les paquets redescendent automatiquement en testing quand ils sont ok). Sinon, peut-être tout simplement que les développeurs sont en unstable parce qu'ils n'en ont pas peur (ils sont mieux armés pour s'y défendre). Mais bon, pour du gros développement, un environnement stable (au sens large) est quand même une meilleure idée, parce que déboguer les toute nouvelles versions des bibliothèques/outils en même temps que son propre travail, c'est pas super productif... -- Sylvain Sauvage -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.net/?DebianFrench Vous pouvez aussi ajouter le mot ``spam'' dans vos champs From et Reply-To: To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: developpement, testing ou unstable?
'ut -;) Sylvain Sauvage wrote: Samedi 8 juillet 2006, 19:36:16 CEST, Jean-Yves F. Barbier a écrit : Salut liste, 'lut, Je suis en train de développer un ERP vertical, et je n'ai pas très bien compris pourquoi pratiquement tout le monde fait cela sous unstable. Je suppose que tu veux dire « tout le monde développe en unstable », et non pas « tout le monde développe un ERP vertical en unstable » ;o) Non, pour le vertical, rien ne vaut une position stable -') Cest sans doute une question de nom, mais j'avais l'impression que testing était plus stable que unstable??? Pourquoi unstable ? Parce que c'est la version dite « de développement » et que l'on confond développement de la distribution et usage de la machine ;o) Notons que si on développe des paquets Debian, il est logique de travailler en unstable : c'est étudié pour (les paquets redescendent automatiquement en testing quand ils sont ok). Sinon, peut-être tout simplement que les développeurs sont en unstable parce qu'ils n'en ont pas peur (ils sont mieux armés pour s'y défendre). Mais bon, pour du gros développement, un environnement stable (au sens large) est quand même une meilleure idée, parce que déboguer les toute nouvelles versions des bibliothèques/outils en même temps que son propre travail, c'est pas super productif... Merci Sylvain, ça confirme keske j'pensais JY -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.net/?DebianFrench Vous pouvez aussi ajouter le mot ``spam'' dans vos champs From et Reply-To: To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: developpement, testing ou unstable?
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 07:36:16PM +0200, Jean-Yves F. Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 20 lines which said: je n'ai pas très bien compris pourquoi pratiquement tout le monde fait cela sous unstable. Pratiquement tout le monde me semble très exagéré. Moi, je développe sur une machine en Debian stable. -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.net/?DebianFrench Vous pouvez aussi ajouter le mot ``spam'' dans vos champs From et Reply-To: To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: developpement, testing ou unstable?
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 07:36:16PM +0200, Jean-Yves F. Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 20 lines which said: je n'ai pas très bien compris pourquoi pratiquement tout le monde fait cela sous unstable. Pratiquement tout le monde me semble très exagéré. Moi, je développe sur une machine en Debian stable. tout le monde moins un relève de pratiquement tout le monde, je trouve. Par rapport à la question, j'imagine que les développeurs unstable veulent profiter des dernières innovations qui leur facilitent la vie. -- by AlainBB http://www.barbason.be -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.net/?DebianFrench Vous pouvez aussi ajouter le mot ``spam'' dans vos champs From et Reply-To: To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing bzw. unstable-Paket in stable installieren
Am Freitag 09 Juni 2006 07:58 schrieb Hannes H.: Ist es überhaupt möglich (und auch sinnvoll), die Zweige zu mischen? Ich fürchte nämlich, dass es es besagtes Paket nicht mehr in die 3.1er-Stable schaffen wird ... Grundsätzlich ist es nicht ratsam stable und testing zu mischen, ob das bei dem von Dir gewünschten php-Paket ginge, weiß ich nicht, aber IMHO ist es besser gar nicht damit anzufangen. Wenn es keinen fertigen Backport (z.B. bpo) gibt, kannst Du versuchen selber einen zu bauen. Source-Paket aus testing (oder unstable) holen evtl. Builddependencies auf in stable vorhandene Bibliotheken anpassen und bauen. Gruß Chris -- A: because it distrupts the normal process of thought Q: why is top posting frowned upon
testing bzw. unstable-Paket in stable installieren
Guten Morgen, an diesem sonnigen Freitag (wer hätte damit noch gerechnet?)! Leider musste ich gestern feststellen, dass das Paket php4-json leider nur in den TESTING- und UNSTABLE-Zweigen von Debian zu finden ist. Da die Version 1.2.x lt pecl.php.net schon als stabil gilt, würde ich sie dennoch gerne einsetzen. Ist es nun sinnvoller, das PECL-Modul mit den Quellen von pecl.php.net zu kompilieren und manuell zu installieren oder ein TESTING- bzw. UNSTABLE-Paket zu installieren? Klar ist, dass ich meinen Server generell nicht auf TESTING oder UNSTABLE umstellen möchte, sondern gezielt dieses eine Paket verwenden. Ist es überhaupt möglich (und auch sinnvoll), die Zweige zu mischen? Ich fürchte nämlich, dass es es besagtes Paket nicht mehr in die 3.1er-Stable schaffen wird ... Danke im Voraus für's Kopfzerbrechen! #Hannes#
Re: Anyone having X problem updating from testing to unstable.
On 5/7/06, Javier-Elias Vasquez-Vivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/6/06, Florian Kulzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 15:11:17 -1000, Javier-Elias Vasquez-Vivas wrote: On 5/5/06, Florian Kulzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] http://wiki.debian.org/Xorg69To7 [...] [...]. WDM doesn't seem to work here, and I've already edited /etc/X11/wdm/Xservers to point to /usr/bin/Xorg, but no success. I can live without it, but I'm wondering if there's something else that can be done. You might have found a new bug. Do you get any error messages when you restart wdm? After a failed log-in attempt, do find anything interesting in ~/.xsession-errors? Maybe you have an old config file somewhere with an incompatible setting; have you tried purging wdm and reinstalling it? -- Regards, Florian I had to admit I didn't tried purging, just removing and installing again. But I did the purge as well after you mentioned it. Nothing works still though. And weird thing I get NO error under .xsession-errors (I've moved old one somewhere else and created new one, and after wdm gets back to login nothing shows up under .xsession-errors). So somehow I'm unable to get an Xsession from wdm, :-(. I checked /etc/X11/wdm/Xstartup, and it was checking for /usr/bin/X11/xmessage, so I changed that for /usr/bin/xmessage, but that didn't change a thing either. So I'm kind of lost, there's must be a unconnected link somewhere, but I can figure out where. For now I'm removing wdm to avoid it at boot... Thanks, -- Javier -- I tried XDM, and XDM is working fine. So this must be an exclusive WDM issue then. The work around is to use XDM then, :-(. -- Javier --
