Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Ideas for separation of "base system"

User discussion about Debian Development, Debian Project News and Announcements. Not for support questions.
Message
Author
User avatar
AdrianTM
Posts: 2499
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

#21 Post by AdrianTM »

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.
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.

User avatar
saulgoode
Posts: 1445
Joined: 2007-10-22 11:34
Been thanked: 4 times

#22 Post by saulgoode »

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. :P
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian Kernighan

ciol
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-10-27 20:24

#23 Post by ciol »

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. :P
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

User avatar
AdrianTM
Posts: 2499
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

#24 Post by AdrianTM »

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

ciol
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-10-27 20:24

#25 Post by ciol »

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.

User avatar
AdrianTM
Posts: 2499
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

#26 Post by AdrianTM »

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.
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.

User avatar
AdrianTM
Posts: 2499
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

#27 Post by AdrianTM »

I'm curious of one thing, you say you were a Debian user, why would you come back to use Debian, what attracts you?
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.

ciol
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-10-27 20:24

#28 Post by ciol »

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.

User avatar
AdrianTM
Posts: 2499
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

#29 Post by AdrianTM »

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?
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.

ciol
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-10-27 20:24

#30 Post by ciol »

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.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 7520
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

#31 Post by BioTube »

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.
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.

ciol
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-10-27 20:24

#32 Post by ciol »

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?

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 7520
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

#33 Post by BioTube »

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".
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.

User avatar
saulgoode
Posts: 1445
Joined: 2007-10-22 11:34
Been thanked: 4 times

#34 Post by saulgoode »

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.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian Kernighan

ciol
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-10-27 20:24

#35 Post by ciol »

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.

digthemdeep
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-08-04 23:02

#36 Post by digthemdeep »

Going back a bit:
AdrianTM wrote:Have you considered that maybe Debian Stable is not for you?
Actually I'm pretty sure that it is for me. I evaluated all the major free distros and Debian Stable is unique. 1) I love the low bug count and the "tried and true" nature of the distro as a whole. This makes a huge difference to me as a desktop user. In fact it perplexes me that no one other than sysadmins seem to appreciate the value of reliability. The fact that it changes less is also a bonus in that it reduces the amount of maintenance. My desktop is more of a workstation; I need it to get things done and every bug is a battle I don't need. I like the -stable philosophy, I think it's almost perfect. 2) Also it can be upgraded to new versions without forcing a re-install.

The stated downside to -stable is the obsolescence. My perception is that this is a necessary compromise, i.e. because system testing takes a lot of time - but this isn't necessary for ALL packages.

The backports concept makes a lot of sense to me now. I can upgrade from OO.o 2.0 to 2.4 without upgrading anything else. That is a powerful advantage, so far as it's possible, as it allows me to pick and choose which applications I am willing to sacrifice to get features. Perhaps this is even better than my original idea taken from FreeBSD, since backports is designed to upgrade on a case-by-case basis, and it is capable of reverting to -stable versions, rather than update the entire application base, which probably would lead to an unmanageable bug-tracking scenario.

However, Backports.org could stand to be improved substantially, IMHO:
1) There is a difference between making a command-line feature versus a GUI feature. I.e. backports is not presently an option for the Unix-disabled masses. For example, when I asked APT to upgrade openoffice-base, it initially guessed that I wanted to break openoffice-calc (and all others), so I had to guess and check to get my command right. Only a competent admin can use it like this.
2) Of the 3 items on my short-list for improvement, only 1 (OO.o) was actually carried in Backports. My long-list had about the same success ratio. Library problems may prevent backporting some packages, but I'm pretty sure Ardour doesn't fall in that category... so... stuff is missing?

I realize there may be practical limitations to supporting another repo - so perhaps it would make sense to limit bug response to broken builds. I'm willing to accept a Backport that comes with no warrantee but leaves me able to "downgrade" to the -stable version. This approach especially makes sense to me where the upgrade list is itemized.

ciol
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-10-27 20:24

#37 Post by ciol »

There is stability and stability.
For a game, do you need to wait for the backports?
If you say "I like my games to be stable too", just don't upgrade if it works, and even if you upgrade and that it does not work, downgrade.
For instance openarena (not in Debian but whatever), has a new version incompatible when you play online with older versions.
Another example, Amsn. Amsn in Etch is too old. I know some people who can't connect.
Here is what the website of amsn says:

It is important for you to update, because this version also fixes a critical bug that prevents a lot of our users from connecting to the MSN network. This is caused by a recent change in the protocol from the MSN server which made aMSN unable to connect to the network...


There is no backports in backports.org.

Another example is ion. Ion is for advanced users, Debian does not need to maintain it as if it was the kernel.

Again, I just say that not everything need to be frozen.

Maybe Debian can stay with this development model, I don't think so, but at least make backports.org official, it will prove that Debian cares about its users.

User avatar
rickh
Posts: 3434
Joined: 2006-06-29 02:13
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA

#38 Post by rickh »

Sheesh! The OP was dumb, and the conversations keeps expanding on that theme. This is Debian. Stable is stable. It doesn't change. If you don't like it, run Testing. This ain't rocket science.

I saw one person up there (who at least understands "Stable"), waxing enthusiastic about how few bugs there are in Stable. Might interest him to know that there are even fewer in Testing.
Debian-Lenny/Sid 32/64
Desktop: Generic Core 2 Duo, EVGA 680i, Nvidia
Laptop: Generic Intel SIS/AC97

User avatar
FolkTheory
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-05-18 23:02

#39 Post by FolkTheory »

rickh wrote:I saw one person up there (who at least understands "Stable"), waxing enthusiastic about how few bugs there are in Stable. Might interest him to know that there are even fewer in Testing.
is that true?
Image

User avatar
AdrianTM
Posts: 2499
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

#40 Post by AdrianTM »

FolkTheory wrote:
rickh wrote:I saw one person up there (who at least understands "Stable"), waxing enthusiastic about how few bugs there are in Stable. Might interest him to know that there are even fewer in Testing.
is that true?
Of course not. There might be fewer bugs discovered. An untested program has 0 bugs, stable has been tested a lot so there was time to discover more bugs. :roll:
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.

Post Reply