Prominently displayed BS.

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

Prominently displayed BS.

Postby weedeater64 » 2016-04-24 15:12

http://i.imgur.com/yeMhuHp.png

What they don't tell you is that the devs intentionally break many of them with each new release/update.

How many thousand are now broken?

Every release/upgrade brings more broken packages.

Why brag about a ton of broken packages?
weedeater64
 
Posts: 168
Joined: 2008-03-18 15:17
Location: Norfolk, Va.

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

Postby tomazzi » 2016-04-24 21:04

Well, I suppose that some of the packages can be broken - especially those which nobody cares about (programs or libraries which are very old or extremely rarely used - no bug reports).

However, I haven't encountered any of such packages as for now - so, just out of curiosity - could You please show some examples?

Regards.
Odi profanum vulgus
tomazzi
 
Posts: 730
Joined: 2013-08-02 21:33

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

Postby GarryRicketson » 2016-04-24 23:51

by tomazzi » However, I haven't encountered any of such packages as for now - so, just out of curiosity - could You please show some examples?

Me neither, so I can't show any examples of broken ones, but below is
example of the 2000 or more packages I have that are not broken,
and they all work just fine for me. I think it helps to be sober , when one installs
the packages, if one is drinking or on drugs they get sloppy, and then they don't install stuff correctly, and they think it is broken.

Image

2,067 to be exact. Now I am sure, out of the 43,000 packages that Debian offers in the repositories, there may be some, that do not work well or at all, on some systems.
And also, one would need to make sure they install the correct packages, for the version of Debian the are using.
For example, just for nostalgia, I have a Debian 1.1 version running on a VM, and it is very difficult to find "archived" packages , that work. But most of them do though.
Of course those need to be downloaded from the archives, and not the current stable
repositories.
If the OP has some packages that don't work, and took the time to be specific, maybe someone could help them repair, or find a unbroken package, appropriate for the version of Debian they are using. Packages for Debian Lenny, are archived as well,
as far as I know, there are not any available in the current repositories.
User avatar
GarryRicketson
 
Posts: 5872
Joined: 2015-01-20 22:16
Location: Durango, Mexico

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

Postby edbarx » 2016-04-25 05:54

Now I am sure, out of the 43,000 packages that Debian offers in the repositories, there may be some, that do not work well or at all, on some systems.

I doubt Debian will ever allow packages to be placed in their repositories knowing they don't work. Packages may be old, but completely non-functional is a bit of a stretch.
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.
User avatar
edbarx
 
Posts: 5401
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

Postby GarryRicketson » 2016-04-25 08:12

----but completely non-functional is a bit of a stretch.

I agree there, I maybe did not word it so well, but what I mean, out of 40,000 + plus
packages, there might be some that don't work on a badly configured system.
No I don't think they would allow any that are "completely non-functional".
So far no has produced even 1 example of any that are "completely non functional",
or even partially.
User avatar
GarryRicketson
 
Posts: 5872
Joined: 2015-01-20 22:16
Location: Durango, Mexico

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

Postby MALsPa » 2016-04-25 11:43

weedeater64 wrote:What they don't tell you is that the devs intentionally break many of them with each new release/update.

Intentionally? Really? How do you "know" this?

weedeater64 wrote:How many thousand are now broken?

Enlighten us. How many?
MALsPa
 
Posts: 659
Joined: 2007-12-07 19:20
Location: albuquerque

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

Postby stevepusser » 2016-04-25 22:35

The thread's title is referencing itself, IMO. Kind of recursive, in the best GNU tradition.
MX Linux packager and developer
User avatar
stevepusser
 
Posts: 11980
Joined: 2009-10-06 05:53

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

Postby dryden » 2016-05-20 12:52

I am sure there is validity to this thread, but I haven't encountered any broken packages myself, then again, I do not use old packages.

Perhaps the OP is referring to older packages that cannot be recompiled, or that are not coming from current repos.

I do not know what older software is still relevant and cannot, or has not, been updated to current libraries and all. I do wish such things like libc6-i386 were installed by default, as some programs (older toolchains) require it, and it is hard to diagnose in case you don't already know, because the error messages are just going to be that extremely cryptic "File not found". Sometimes Linux seems to be about who can make the most cryptic, and least verbose, error messages.
dryden
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 2015-02-04 08:54


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

fashionable