Ideas for separation of "base system"

Message

AdrianTM · #16 Post by **AdrianTM** » 2008-08-07 08:35

Have you considered that maybe Debian Stable is not for you?

Instead of trying to change something that's not for you, try to find something that is. From 400 distros I'm sure you'll find something appropriate, but if you still don't find something you fully like and you still like Debian then maybe you should give them the benefit of doubt, maybe, just maybe they do things right.

ciol · #17 Post by **ciol** » 2008-08-07 08:38

I thought one of the priorities of Debian was their users.
If not, they should remove "The Universal Operating System" from their main website.

AdrianTM · #18 Post by **AdrianTM** » 2008-08-07 08:40

ciol wrote:I thought one of the priorities of Debian was their users.
If not, they should remove "The Universal Operating System" from their main website.

The main priorities of Debian is their users, not you specifically. But whatever if you think that you talk for most of the users I will let you believe that...

But again, if you don't like how Debian does things you should probably use something else, why not BSD since you seem to appreciate how they do stuff?

saulgoode · #19 Post by **saulgoode** » 2008-08-07 08:44

ciol wrote:In a bump from The Gimp 2.2 to 2.4 maybe. But look: Debian has The Gimp 2.2.13 in etch. The last from the 2.2 branch is 2.2.17. I think you can safely and easily upgrade in this case. That's all what I'm trying to say.
If The Gimp released 2.2.17, there are some reasons. I don't know why ignore them.

I agree with you here. It would seem reasonable to provide a package to update GIMP to version 2.2.17. But this is permitted under the existing updates policy and the failure is most likely an oversight on the part of the package maintainer.

ciol · #20 Post by **ciol** » 2008-08-07 08:46

@AdrianTM:
I was a Debian user, digthemdeep and tuomov are debian users. I don't think we are less important than others.

It would seem reasonable to provide a package to update GIMP to version 2.2.17. But this is permitted under the existing updates policy

It's not.

AdrianTM · #21 Post by **AdrianTM** » 2008-08-07 08:49

ciol wrote:@AdrianTM:
I was a Debian user, digthemdeep and tuomov are debian users. I don't think we are less important than others.

But not more important than others either.

I assume that you have used Debian for some good reasons, don't you think that those reasons have to do with how Debian does things? If they would do things differently they wouldn't be Debian they would be BSD or something else, if you want something totally different is not rational to try to change Debian the rational thing to do is try to find something that's closer to what you want.

saulgoode · #22 Post by **saulgoode** » 2008-08-07 09:12

ciol wrote:
It would seem reasonable to provide a package to update GIMP to version 2.2.17. But this is permitted under the existing updates policy
It's not.

It is.

ciol · #23 Post by **ciol** » 2008-08-07 09:57

saulgoode wrote:
ciol wrote:
It would seem reasonable to provide a package to update GIMP to version 2.2.17. But this is permitted under the existing updates policy
It's not.
It is.

It's not:

No new functionality is added to the stable release. Once a Debian version is released and tagged `stable' it will only get security updates. That is, only packages for which a security vulnerability has been found after the release will be upgraded. All the security updates are served through security.debian.org.

Security updates serve one purpose: to supply a fix for a security vulnerability. They are not a method for sneaking additional changes into the stable release without going through normal point release procedure. Consequently, fixes for packages with security issues will not upgrade the software. The Debian Security Team will backport the necessary fixes to the version of the software distributed in `stable' instead.

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debia ... datestable

AdrianTM · #24 Post by **AdrianTM** » 2008-08-07 10:00

This seems to me like a smart policy. If somebody wants newer packages they can always add a backport repo.

ciol · #25 Post by **ciol** » 2008-08-07 10:12

This seems to me like a smart policy

What's the point of backporting every security update for *each* package instead of simply upgrading when possible? Again, a system administrator does not need that Debian maintains Apache or the Kernel the same way than ion or a game.

AdrianTM wrote:If somebody wants newer packages they can always add a backport repo.

1) Backports are not officials.
2) Several days are necessary to have a backport (since the package have to be in -testing first).
3) You can't have a lot of backports, or you will have trouble during the next stable release update.
4) There is no backports of beta versions, so free software can't improve, since only those who have testing or sid can easily take and test packages from experimental.

AdrianTM · #26 Post by **AdrianTM** » 2008-08-07 10:21

What's the point of backporting every security update for *each* package instead of simply upgrading when possible?

An OS is a complicated system, if you want stability you adopt a policy like Debian's no upgrades unless for security issue. For people who want upgrades there are backports, if it's "just a simple upgrade" as you say don't let the "backport" name fool you, it will still be a simple upgrade.

You say that backports create problem when upgrading, maybe you provided a response to your question of why they are not introduced in the main repo.

As for software not improving it's strange... I've seen it improving over years even though Debian had the same structure that you criticize. And yes, for bleeding edge there's Sid/Experimental, if you want to test experimental and beta packages you use that, if you want stability you use Stable if you want something in between you use Testing.

AdrianTM · #27 Post by **AdrianTM** » 2008-08-07 10:29

I'm curious of one thing, you say you were a Debian user, why would you come back to use Debian, what attracts you?

ciol · #28 Post by **ciol** » 2008-08-07 12:30

I'm curious of one thing, you say you were a Debian user, why would you come back to use Debian, what attracts you?

If Debian changes its development model, or if backports were at least officials, maybe I would come back.
In fact, I'm disappointed because Debian had a lot of potential.
I'm looking for a distro that I'd love passionately, a distro I could contribute intensively because I totally agree with it.

AdrianTM · #29 Post by **AdrianTM** » 2008-08-07 12:34

ciol wrote:
I'm curious of one thing, you say you were a Debian user, why would you come back to use Debian, what attracts you?
If Debian changes its development model, or if backports were at least officials, maybe I would come back.
In fact, I'm disappointed because Debian had a lot of potential.
I'm looking for a distro that I'd love passionately, a distro I could contribute intensively because I totally agree with it.

I didn't mean to ask what would make you come back, but rather, why do you want to come back. Why is Debian better than BSD or whatever you use currently? Or... if it's not better why not settle with BSD or whatever you use? Why can't you contribute to that, why can't you totally agree with it?

ciol · #30 Post by **ciol** » 2008-08-07 12:47

I still not have found my distribution. So I stay with Slackware by default.
I can't explain very well what I don't like in the others distros, because I don't speak English well enough, but I will try:

The only choices are:
* Gentoo: perfect development model, but compile times are too long.
* Ubuntu/Mandriva/... : those are megafrozen distro like debian -stable, but with a shorter release cycle. And they release too quickly while maintaining several distros -> bad quality.
* rolling release like Arch Linux or debian -testing: too risky. Too many updates, even in the essential libraries or the base system. I don't want to die from a heart attack.
* debian -stable: I already explained.
* BSD: maybe it's good, but I trust in Linux.

BioTube · #31 Post by **BioTube** » 2008-08-07 13:03

Debian is about stability. That's the whole purpose of the development model - to make sure stable is. As for backports, a quirk in apt regarding ~ and - in version numbers means that upgrading's not broken in the slightest. The delay is only good because we users of Sid and testing have already used it and found it free of major bugs(or squashed them). A point in favor of the Debian model is the fact that testing is more stable than some distros' gold releases.

ciol · #32 Post by **ciol** » 2008-08-07 13:17

Debian is about stability.

Again, the question is "who needs this stability?". And from those who need it, who needs to have ion to be maintained like the kernel in -stable?

BioTube · #33 Post by **BioTube** » 2008-08-07 13:21

Again, backports offers just about everything but the system libraries. And it's not about "who needs this stability"(the answer's obviously servers), but rather "what justifies abandoning everything the distro stands for?", to which the answer is "almost nothing".

saulgoode · #34 Post by **saulgoode** » 2008-08-07 14:05

ciol wrote:It's not:

No new functionality is added to the stable release. Once a Debian version is released and tagged `stable' it will only get security updates. That is, only packages for which a security vulnerability has been found after the release will be upgraded. All the security updates are served through security.debian.org.

Security updates serve one purpose: to supply a fix for a security vulnerability. They are not a method for sneaking additional changes into the stable release without going through normal point release procedure. Consequently, fixes for packages with security issues will not upgrade the software. The Debian Security Team will backport the necessary fixes to the version of the software distributed in `stable' instead.

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debia ... datestable

I stand corrected, thanks. I join you in disagreeing with Debian's approach to providing security fixes. It would be, in my opinion, less error prone (and entail less work) to provide the newer point release of a program, rather than have a package maintainer applying his own patches to the project's stable releases.

ciol · #35 Post by **ciol** » 2008-08-07 14:09

what justifies abandoning everything the distro stands for?

Only system administrators need -stable as it is today.
They are in minority compared to the other users.
Just drop -stable and make it unofficial, like backports.org is. Those who want the stability will contribute.
I'm really tired of this sysadmin lobbying.
Every time you submit a proposal in the debian mailing lists, you have a sysadmin who says "please, please debian developers, do not change anything because everything work". They are selfish.