Debian User Forums

Would it be possible to have a Board on here just devoted to questions for people just using Debian Testing?

What would you put on it? Testing is just what testing means. It is where we test what could become the next Stable. Is that what you are proposing? Are you going to be testing, finding solutions, filing bug reports with your solutions and posting all that here?

^That sounds like a good idea, actually. But mailing lists are better suited for it.
OTOH, we already have subforum for Debian development.

Why not post your question and mention its testing?

I don't see any reason to have a special board for Debian testing, usually people say they are useing testing when they have problems.
If someone just wants to start a General Discussion, on testing, they could start a topic in : http://forums.debian.net/viewforum.php?f=20

General Discussion
Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!

Similar, in "General Questions", one can start a topic with their specific question, and if it is Debian testing, that would be a important detail to include in the first post.

What I thought was it would be a good place for those to post their issues when using testing to help each other with their problems. That way it wouldn't deter from the stable questions that are on the forum.

Also I know many here think if you are running testing then you should have a certain level of knowledge about Debian and your system.
Well as for me and maybe I am the only one here doing this but I am not an expert with Debian or linux but like running testing and learning as I go.
I run testing like the stable users use stable.

Just having other testing members to bounce questions off of would seem helpful to me.
When I have an issue I look at the bug reports but they are not easy to read and hard to know if the problems there are the same as mine.
Maybe I will get better with that as time goes.
All the suggestions are good and if we can't have a testing section that's ok too. I will keep going like I have been.
I appreciate all the help here as I have said before. There is a good core group of people here trying to help people and I try where I can.
I feel intimidated posting sometimes because I don't know everything and feel I might answer something wrong.
I like Debian and am going to stay with it.
Sorry for the off topic rant.

I have created a thread for that:
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=135736

dcihon wrote:Also I know many here think if you are running testing then you should have a certain level of knowledge about Debian and your system.

I agree with those people.

dcihon wrote:Well as for me and maybe I am the only one here doing this but I am not an expert with Debian or linux but like running testing and learning as I go.
I run testing like the stable users use stable.

Debian testing seems to be much more docile that it used to be, maybe the devs are more cautious. Nevertheless, I would never use/recommand testing again. My toughtest rides with Debian was during running testing while thinking it was a kind-of-up-to-date stable. Critical parts of the system would turn incompatible with other parts, or simply go missing and you would have to be a knowledgable person or do the same as I did, reinstall stable.

If I need more up to date software, I use backports. If I really need shiny software, I use unstable (it is inconvenient for me because unstable doesn't like long period of time between apt upgrade, it is meant to be upgrade incrementally which I can't do).
So between stable+backports and unstable, testing becomes unrelevant.

My advice to anyone pushing to use testing, is to add stable repo to sources.list. It helps when testing is missing important part and you system is broken. Just install the parts from the stable version.

Funkygoby wrote:My advice to anyone pushing to use testing, is to add stable repo to sources.list. It helps when testing is missing important part and you system is broken. Just install the parts from the stable version.

No, just no.
If you have experience with Debian and need the latest and greatest, use Unstable since it has fixed software faster than Testing.
If you want to test the next Stable release, use Testing. Report bugs, send commits etc.
If you just want to use Debian as intended, use Stable, with or without backports.

Period.

@wheelerof4te:
We are saying the mostly same things don't we?

Every failure I experienced while using testing involved incompatibles packages being removed from the repo. Suddenly, you are missing your graphic drivers and are stuck in a tty.
Are you suggesting, one should contemplate his screen waiting for the driver to come back? I say, let's install the driver from the stable repo and keep going. Is that unreasonnable to you?

I am not saying that you should use stable software instead of using and reporting bugs for the testing versions.
I am saying that in case of a broken system, using stable's repos is a solution.

Wheelerof4te,
You know I posted on that thread.
Thanks

Funkygoby wrote:@wheelerof4te:
We are saying the mostly same things don't we?

I don't think so. IIUC, you keep talking about using testing but he says that testing is only for testing, not for using.

Funkygoby wrote:Are you suggesting, one should contemplate his screen waiting for the driver to come back? I say, let's install the driver from the stable repo and keep going. Is that unreasonnable to you?

I don't mean to talk for him, but I guess he would answer yes and yes. Wait for the missing packets to come back, then keep on testing. This is not a problem because you don't use testing, you just test it.

@Funkygoby We are not saying the same things, no. Installing those drivers from the stable repo will maybe for the moment fix your problem, but it will create the dependency hell from which it will be very hard or even impossible to recover later. That is how almost every FrankenDebian is born.
Point of using Testing is to test how new packages from upstream integrate with the entire distro and if they don't, remove them or patch on time. Unstable is where upstream packages go before they are tested against the next Stable in the Testing repo.

People need to stop recommending things that will not be beneficial for newcomers, keep in mind that there are many lurkers on this forum who are maybe interested in trying Debian. For those, it's best to recommend using Stable and Stable only.

@dcihon Sorry, it's been a while since I've visited it. Keep on posting

@p.h & wheelerof4te
English isn't my native language, maybe I was misunderstood. I am hesitant to quote myself but I clearly stated:
- that I agree with people saying that testing is for knowledgeable people.
- I would never use/recommand testing again (better rephrased as "I will never recommand -testing anymore").
- then went on describing how testing failed on me.
- how -stable (optionnal backports) or even unstable was a better solution

Since OP seems to use testing "as other uses stable" and is "not an expert at Debian and linux", I assume that he might be using testing as his main system (instead of just "testing" it) without the skills. Does he have a spare system in case testing fails? That was me years ago and I would have loved to know that I could "hack" my testing in order to finish what I was doing instead of burning hours reinstalling a -stable system.
I am not advocating frankeindebian. I am discussing stable's repos as a "maybe" safety net.

My point is, testing is a hack by nature. There are warning signs everywhere but people are still going for it expecting a uptodate-stable or a cooled-down-unstable which testing certainly isn't.
Newcomers using testing as a -stable daily driver might want to be able to escape it when it fails (bring back his system to life, make backups then reinstall something else). If he chooses to keep using his failing testing, thanks to hacks, that's on him.
People actually willing to "test" testing should have a spare system, VM, harddrive, whatever; knowledge, skills.