Slashdot Log In
Bugs Delay Release of Debian Lenny
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:57 PM
from the better-late-than-buggy dept.
from the better-late-than-buggy dept.
A. B. VerHausen writes to tell us that over 200 release-critical bugs continue to push back Debian Lenny's release date. Originally slated for a September release, there is still a long road to be traveled before Lenny sees the light of day. Project leader Steve McIntyre says they may consider dropping some packages for the release if they continue to cause problems, and while an end of October release is the goal, only time will tell.
Related Stories
[+]
Debian Maintainer Hints At September Release for Lenny 117 comments
nerdyH writes "The Debian project's maintainer, Luke Claes, announced in an email Saturday that he will freeze the 'testing' or 'Lenny' tree, in preparation for a new stable release of Debian Linux in ... September! The freeze means that open source software developers have only a couple more days to package any applications that they want to be included in the next release of Debian — and by extension, in the inner sanctum source lists of distributions such as Ubuntu that are based on it. After the freeze starts next week, Debian maintainers will turn their attention to 364 release-critical bugs, and half-a-dozen high-priority goals. Given the work to be done, is September really feasible? Lenny always was a little slow getting back to his right place ..."
Submission: Bugs delay release of Debian Lenn by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Debian Lenny Installer RC1 Arrives 81 comments
nerdyH writes "It appears that Debian 5.0 (aka "Lenny") will soon take its big binocular eyes out into the wider world. Only two months later than expected, the Debian project has completed the first release candidate of Lenny's installer. Featuring much faster installation from "live" CDs, and expanded support for ARM-based devices such as NAS servers, Lenny has gestated for 19 months, compared to 21 months for the previous "Etch" release. Lookout, world, Debian releases are picking up speed! The download is here."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What else is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shocking!!!
Seriously, this doesn't seem unusual. I'm happy that the team is waiting until all the bugs are squashed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What else is new? (Score:5, Funny)
Kill yourself.
bash: kill: yourself: arguments must be process or job IDs
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What else is new? (Score:4, Interesting)
I just have one stupid question: when will Debian run out of Toy Story Characters [wikipedia.org] to name releases after? (Methinks the Hand-in-the-box [wikipedia.org] release will not be well received...)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The shortened release cycle seems to be working pretty well. Afaict thier current strategy is to aim for 18 months and be happy with 24. They achieved that with etch and it seems likely they will achieve it with lenny.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ubuntu's childish names.
You ain't seen nothing yet: 2016.4 will be Pulsating Penis!
Just wait till Debian names the next release after Wheezy, the asthmatic penguin.
Re:What else is new? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ubuntu Hardy is easier for search engines to find than Ubuntu 8.04
Which makes it easier to find references to what you're looking for.
Parent
Re:What else is new? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:What else is new? (Score:4, Funny)
settle down there, 623900.
Get off my lawn, 697238!
Damn kids...
Parent
Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also I am pretty sure that Ubuntu is based on Debian.
Parent
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
There needs to be distros like Debian which, while always delayed, has all the important bugs ironed out.
Parent
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
There needs to be distros like Debian which, while always delayed, has all the important bugs ironed out.
..cough..OpenSSL vulnerability [slashdot.org]..cough
Parent
Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
There needs to be distros like Debian which, while always delayed, has all the important bugs ironed out.
Debian is like Debian. Seriously, how many Debian distros do we really need? 1 is fine with me.
Also I am pretty sure that Ubuntu is based on Debian.
Ubuntu is based on Debian Unstable. Their release processes are entirely different. Ubuntu includes buggy packages that Debian would reject in a stable release.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought Linux was supposed to be to OS X as OS X is to Windows in terms of stability (ie, not just rock-solid, but it will punch you in the gut if you try to crash it)... is this not the case?
Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
Depends. "Linux" in general usage = Linux kernel + critical userspace stuff (glibc, etc.) + apps / services.
Stable kernel versions are generally very, very stable. Ditto the critical, foundation userspace stuff.
As on most other platforms, the apps vary. Because we're talking open source here, unstable test versions are usually available, and often the bleeding-edge stuff the developers are still editing is available, too. Different distributions choose what to ship, depending on what their target audience is.
Also, regardless of the stability of individual components, there are often issues that arise from the interactions between the components. That's actually where Linux distros are a huge win over other OSs: the developers test, patch, and integrate a huge swathe of free software alongside the core OS, in a way that commercial OSs don't (they may do the testing bit, but that's all.)
Ubuntu, AIUI, made a deliberate decision to be slightly less anal about rock solid stability and nailing every last bug, in order to be able to ship more up-to-date versions of the applications that most people use day to day. Crashes are undesirable, but having features missing that you want to use is also undesirable. And having said that, Ubuntu is usually pretty bomb-proof too.
"Linux" is a complex ecosystem, but it offers choice, and switching between different flavours once you've found your personal "sweet spot" is still much less painful than migrating between other OSs.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's nice to be able to make that choice.
Release When Ready (Score:5, Informative)
For production quality operating systems there is *nothing* better than release when ready. Given the sheer number of packages and diversity of platforms, all the Debian volunteers do a great job.
It remains the corner-case user who needs the latest and greatest release of any given package.
As an fyi, I've been running Lenny for at least 6 months as a clean-install desktop with no issues. Upgrading from stable to Lenny had issues for me. I've got two servers running Lenny without show-stopper bugs right now.
Lenny's got a really nice KDE4 in an unofficial repo at deb http://kde4.debian.net/ [debian.net] . I encourage users to check it out. Don't enter bugs against these packages in Debian though.
Parent
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. And if you're too impatient to wait for them to get all the bugs out, that's what Sid is for. I've been using debian unstable since it was lenny, and it's always been very good. It's very rare that there's actually a bug in a package I use, so it's plenty stable for my purposes.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
If you think Ubuntu has the latest and greatest packages, maybe you should try it once. Most of the packages are outdated and I don't rely on the package manager if I want the latest version anymore.
To be fair, Debian does do quite a bit more testing than Ubuntu. OTOH, Ubuntu does a lot more spit-and-polish integration than Debian and is unafraid to take controversial stances on things like binary drivers or distributing Firefox with Firefox branding (as opposed to Ice Weasel or whatever) or distributing some codecs that may be violating patents or using code from other distros (like system-config-printer).
Debian is more about stability and reliability, while Ubuntu is more about the end-user experience.
When you make a Linux distro, you have to make a few tradeoffs. The differences between Ubuntu and Debian are mostly about differences in decision-making regarding these tradeoffs.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ubuntu tends to have the latest and greatest packages up front. For example, 8.04 was released with a Firefox 3.0 release candidate. The trick is that they don't upgrade packages arbitrarily--they'll upgrade or backport for security fixes, but not for the newest version. You'll have to wait for the next major release if you want that.
It's a nice compromise between bleeding-edge and stability. I'm sure that the process is only made more difficult by upstream developers mixing bugfixes with new features.
Re:Good! (Score:4, Interesting)
When something is missing you can download the source package of the new version, make the compile, generate a binary package and install it in an automated way.
An extra plus: during the process you can also patch the source.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
An extra-extra-plus-good bonus:
If a new binary package comes along since your last build, the package manager will notice and suggest you update. You don't need to worry quite so much about your build getting stale.
Meanwhile, In 'Unstable'... (Score:2)
In 'aptitude', I pick through the packages with updates available and look at the changelogs to see what got changed to see if it's one I want to take. About a week ago, a bunch of updated packages showed up, but the corresponding changelogs seem to have gone AWOL (examples: there is no changelog for smbclient 2:3.2.3-3, or iceweasel 3.0.3-2).
I've seen this sort of thing before, but never understood why it was happening. Can anyo
Re: (Score:2)
Which changelogs are you referring to? These [debian.org]? Or the changelogs within the package?
Re:Meanwhile, In 'Unstable'... (Score:4, Informative)
If this is happening, first check the changelog for the affected package in /usr/share/doc. If it is out of date or missing, you need to file a severity minor [debian.org] (with the following rationale [debian.org]) against the packages missing the updated changelog. This is not a violation of Debian policy (which would warrant a severity of serious), but it's suggested by policy and trivial to add.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The above user does not want to install the packages unless they have a change he would interested in. Changelogs are only available in /usr/share/doc AFTER the package is installed. Although, I suppose he could manually download the .deb, unarchive it using ar, tar, and gz, and then see if it would have a changelog in /usr/share/doc that way.
I have noticed something similar as the above poster; it might have the same cause. I will sometimes browse packages.debian.org/sid/package-name, and then click on cha
Release ti, and call it Ubuntu (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Be careful. I hear Mark Shuttleworth has a patent on that.
Why don't they just fork from Ubuntu (Score:5, Funny)
Please, we want Debian 4.1, not 5.0 (Score:2)
Stop seeking .0 releases. Debian 4.0 Etch users want Debian 4.1, not 5.0, because a .1 release can come out much more quickly and with less potential for bugs than a .0 release. What I would like to have is a 4.1 release, followed by a 4.2 and 4.3, and potentially a 4.4 release, which will all make small incremental improvements and risk-free popular package updates within short timeframes, and only then a 5.0 release with lots of new but more riskier package updates and maybe also architectural changes i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Please, we want Debian 4.1, not 5.0 (Score:4, Informative)
Red Hat marketing may not acknowledge point releases, but they do indeed exist [redhat.com]. And CentOS tracks 'em. That's why I know. (Too cheap for RHEL, too lazy for Fedora. I use Kubuntu for desktops, but the server has always been in the Red Hat lineage.)
Parent
Re:Please, we want Debian 4.1, not 5.0 (Score:5, Informative)
What I would like to have is a 4.1 release
Well, don't project what you want unto the rest of the world.
Debian stable is a server distro. Every time there is an upgrade, a full regression test must be done to the server. This is expensive and time-consuming. The whole idea of Debian stable is that it is stable and doesn't change often. No one running stable wants the latest and greatest. We want stability and security fixes. That's it.
Clearly you already know about the testing and unstable releases, but did you know about backports and volitile? Volitile is great for things like anti-virus and anti-spam software that you really do want and need upgrades. Backports is a little different--it's basically upgrades for popular packages in stable, and you can pick and choose which ones you want.
Stable means stable, and backports and volitile are great tools to help you. If you want the latest and greatest, that's what the testing release is for.
Parent
Debian has no release date!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Debian has no release date. It never had, and doesn't seem to have any plans on adopting release dates. Thus, Debian can't be "late", since being late implies on missing a release date, and Debian doesn't have that. Or, maybe I didn't repeat that enough, so let me tell you: Debian never made a compromisse on releasing any version on any exact day.
What Debian does have is a list of bugs. Everytime testing is frozen, it is created a list with the showstopper bugs, and release happens when that list becomes empty. The list can increase if more bugs are found, or decrease if bugs are solved or some functionality removed.
Debian also do have people betting when it'll be out. Those people give specific (or sometimes not very specific) dates, but that isn't a release date for the team, just a guesstimate.
Re:Debian has no release date!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I don't dispute the claims you make, I would like to point out that
1. Debian does make announcements about prospective release dates. These aren't firm promises and shouldn't be interpreted as such, but it is disappointing when they miss those dates by months.
2. Releases aren't only made when the bug count drops to zero. First of all, there are bugs that aren't considered "release-critical". Secondly, sometimes (I think this happened with etch) releases are made with known issues and a promise to fix those issues Real Soon Now. Thirdly, the way the bug count is brought to zero usually includes simply throwing out packages that have known bugs. If many people want such a package, that isn't very helpful.
3. Bugs that would have been "release-critical" are often discovered after a release is made. The current stable release, etch, had more release-critical bugs pending against it than lenny (the upcoming stable release), last time I checked.
What all this means is that Debian will _not_ generalyl be released at any date that has been mentioned, and will _not_ generally be bug-free when released.
Having said all that, it's still my favorite operating system, as it takes less of my time to use and maintain than anything else I have tried (and that is quite a lot).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, becuase Debian and Ubuntu both have different purposes and combining the two would cause community strife and lowered productivity overall?
Nahh, that's not it. Nevermind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I think we would be glad if Microsoft was holding back a release because of critical bugs. Sure, there would be the occasional jackhole who said Microsoft sucks because they can't keep a release date. But, if they were being as open as Debian and admitting to fixing critical bugs (and presenting them for us to see), I'm sure there would be some insightful comments about the increased quality being worth the wait.
Re:No "haha" tag? (Score:5, Interesting)
Possibly, but I truly don't think Microsoft could ever do right around here. Short of releasing the OS under either the BSD license or the GPL, they will forever have a reputation as software bloaters, monopolists, and DRM-supporters. And such a reputation is not undeserved.
The truth is, I'm not sure they could ever make a stable release of Windows. Vista was horribly delayed, horribly buggy on release, and had dropped a fair number of planned features in order to prevent further delays. If they'd planned to quash most of the bugs before release, I wonder how long it would have taken to get it all done?
Debian has the benefit of a good reputation and of having free software. People aren't scared to run pre-release versions of Debian in production, and it's relatively simple to fix many bugs yourself while waiting for something official from Debian. This means that Debian gets more testers doing real work with their release candidates.
Compare this to Microsoft, who also publish beta and release candidates for free (though free-as-in-beer.) How many people ran Vista full-time before it was released? Heck, Microsoft can barely get people to run it full-time now that it's been out for a while!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is an obvious copy & paste troll.
Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't use Sarge (Score:5, Informative)
I still use Debian Sarge on my current server.
Bad idea. Support for Sarge ended in April, so you haven't been getting any security updates since then, and there are some known weaknesses.
You should upgrade to Etch, ASAP.
Parent
Re:Don't use Sarge (Score:5, Funny)
I still use Debian Sarge on my current server.
Bad idea. Support for Sarge ended in April, so you haven't been getting any security updates since then, and there are some known weaknesses.
You should upgrade to Etch, ASAP.
Look, just get his IP address and do it for him.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is the kernel team aren't cooperating :(. They won't keep the -486 kernel slim enough and they won't sanction the creation of a seperate kernel flavor just for the floppy installer to use it.
With etch the kernel had grown to the point that they had to kick everything that wasn't absoloutly essential (including USB floppy support) from the boot floppy.
With lenny a couple of bad things happened. Firstly the UPX recompressor stopped working for current kernels. And then just as there was talk of fi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>fresh installation
Why are you doing this? Just upgrade in place, like everyone else, instead of reinstalling.