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?
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
Prominently displayed BS.
-
- Posts: 166
- Joined: 2008-03-18 15:17
- Location: Norfolk, Va.
Re: Prominently displayed BS.
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.
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
- GarryRicketson
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: 2015-01-20 22:16
- Location: Durango, Mexico
Re: Prominently displayed BS.
Me neither, so I can't show any examples of broken ones, but below isby tomazzi » However, I haven't encountered any of such packages as for now - so, just out of curiosity - could You please show some examples?
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.
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.
"What we expect you have already Done"
==========
Old Website
======================
For the Birds
==================
What Does a Parrot Know About PTSD?
==========
Old Website
======================
For the Birds
==================
What Does a Parrot Know About PTSD?
Re: Prominently displayed BS.
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.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.
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.
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.
- GarryRicketson
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: 2015-01-20 22:16
- Location: Durango, Mexico
Re: Prominently displayed BS.
I agree there, I maybe did not word it so well, but what I mean, out of 40,000 + plus----but completely non-functional is a bit of a stretch.
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.
"What we expect you have already Done"
==========
Old Website
======================
For the Birds
==================
What Does a Parrot Know About PTSD?
==========
Old Website
======================
For the Birds
==================
What Does a Parrot Know About PTSD?
Re: Prominently displayed BS.
Intentionally? Really? How do you "know" this?weedeater64 wrote:What they don't tell you is that the devs intentionally break many of them with each new release/update.
Enlighten us. How many?weedeater64 wrote:How many thousand are now broken?
- stevepusser
- Posts: 12930
- Joined: 2009-10-06 05:53
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 71 times
Re: Prominently displayed BS.
The thread's title is referencing itself, IMO. Kind of recursive, in the best GNU tradition.
MX Linux packager and developer
Re: Prominently displayed BS.
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.
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.