Page 1 of 1

Prominently displayed BS.

PostPosted: 2016-04-24 15:12
by weedeater64
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?

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

PostPosted: 2016-04-24 21:04
by tomazzi
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.

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

PostPosted: 2016-04-24 23:51
by GarryRicketson
by tomazzi ยป 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.

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

PostPosted: 2016-04-25 05:54
by edbarx
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.

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

PostPosted: 2016-04-25 08:12
by GarryRicketson
----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.

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

PostPosted: 2016-04-25 11:43
by MALsPa
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?

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

PostPosted: 2016-04-25 22:35
by stevepusser
The thread's title is referencing itself, IMO. Kind of recursive, in the best GNU tradition.

Re: Prominently displayed BS.

PostPosted: 2016-05-20 12:52
by dryden
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.