Debian Testing Tree Goes Online 68
A few people noted that Debian has
brought the 'Testing' Tree on-line. So now we have Stable (currently potato) for production boxes, Testing (woody) for settling things down before an eventual release, and a new unstable tree for those of us who'd just rather things randomly break. Here's a bit
more info if you're
curious.
Re:Why not frozen? (Score:1)
Testing has the ovbious advantages of being new-enough, without all the hastles and worries about breakdowns. Stable is still the best for production servers, and people who don't want to apt-get update/upgrade very much. Testing is good for some server situations, and the majority of desktops where apt-get update/upgrade should be done maybe once a week or so. And unstable is as always, unstable (well in Debian terms, I'm sure most find it plenty stable).
-- BLarg!
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:1)
After a little research, I found the proper package and everything works wonderfully again.
What package was that? I'd really like to go back to Debian.
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:1)
perl-5.6
perl-5.6-base
perl-5.6-debug
perl-5.6-doc
perl-5.6-suid
It was either perl-5.6 or perl-5.6-base. After I did an "apt-get install" on the one that was missing, apt started working again.
Re:I'll switch (Score:1)
As a newbie who's only used Windows and RedHat before now, the installer is the best I've seen - I haven't seen another (in my limited experiance) that gives you nearly as much control over the whole process. Installing Win98 scares me now.... ("What? You bastard, you overwrote my MBR without asking!! Noooooooo!")
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:2)
Unstable is unstable, and sometimes (but not too often) it breaks. In general I find it to be more stable than the so-called "mainstream" distro's stable versions.
Dibian (Score:1)
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:1)
Re:Devel tree? (Score:1)
I think....therefore I am
Re:Testing is auto-generated (Score:1)
What happens when the latest version of Package A, which depends on the latest version of Package B, goes into Testing but the latest version of Package B doesn't make it into testing because of bugs? Is that dealt with automatically by either apt-get or the testing scripts?
Apache? (Score:2)
How is Apache innovative? Is it not a recreation of NCSA httpd? nuf said.
Re:The Holy Light? That's the problem... (Score:1)
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:2)
etc/X11/Xwrapper.conf
because I wasn't in the root directory. (It should have tried to write the file to
/etc/X11/Xwrapper.conf
instead I think. I took me 15-20 mins to figure it out.
Re:Some suggestions for next time something breaks (Score:2)
You mean there's another way?
Besides, I might want to try a BSD car rather than a GPL car--there's less engine knocking, I hear, and I'm not concerned with the possibility of people reselling my spark plugs. And... oh, wait, the analogy just broke. Never mind.
Re:I'll switch (Score:1)
You're tired of Slashdot ads? Get junkbuster [junkbusters.com] now!
respectable (Score:1)
Randomly break? (Score:3)
Although if you like things to just randomly break, why aren't you using Windows?
--
Testing: Automatic 2 week Shelf Life and Debugging (Score:1)
Thank you! Just Saturday driving to the mall I was explaining to my girlfriend the difference between distros, and I tried to remember the ~3 month old story/advantage of Debian going to a stable > testing > unstable tree. Anyway, for the past few days it's been nagging me that I couldn't remember how stable > frozen > unstable was any different.
It's the automatic nature (~2 weeks) of unstable packages coupled with the assumtion that any major bugs {are now!}/will be rectified within unstable before they are shifted to testing. So IOW, testing (packages) can be thought as 'unstable for 2 weeks with any showstopper bugs already dealt with in the 2 week interim to testing.'
And the advantage of that is that Debian users report that nixing such bugs out in the first two weeks provides a typical/like-other Linux distro usable quality (read, a faster more up to date Debian GNU/Linux =)
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Re:nice to hear (Score:1)
The stable tree is (I'm guessing) there for people who don't want to update every day and find things are always new. I have servers running old versions of unstable, and have never had a problem.
right... (Score:1)
Re:respectable (Score:4)
Try running potato - the stable distro.
Woody is unstable. If you apt-get upgrade your woody regularly you will occasionally have some fun manual work to do. Like that upgrade last week that broke perl and thus debconf.
But the debian releases are in general more stable and MUCH MUCH easier to maintain than any RPM based distro. The packaging is just clean.
The reason the packaging is clean is simple. There are 644 Debian packagers, most of them system administrators running Debian for a living. It is human nature to be lazy, so these administrators each do their job on Debian so that their day jobs are easy and they can play quake while RedHat, Mandrake, and SuSE admins are resolving package dependencies and compiling unsupported packages from tarballs.
Now where is that Dubya patch for Quake again
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:1)
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:4)
In order to understand the problem, you have to understand how Debian does (or at least "did") user-specific stuff. For anything where multiple versions were available, and for which end users might want to select which one to actually use, they set up links in /etc/alternatives and then another link in whichever directory is appropriate, usually /usr/bin or /usr/sbin for binaries.
Since there are multiple versions of perl interpreter out there, and since users might want to select between them, perl was done in this way so you might have /usr/bin/perl linked to /etc/alternatives/perl which would then be linked to /usr/bin/perl-5.005 or some such.
Well, the perl5.6 package deleted the link /usr/bin/perl and didn't replace it with anything. Since many of the install scripts use perl, this started breaking stuff during the upgrade that first included perl5.6. It took me a while, but once I noticed that install scripts were failing with "file not found" errors, I took a quick look and was able to verify both that the broken programs were perl scripts and that /usr/bin/perl was nowhere to be found.
So, I immediately created the symbolic link between /usr/bin/perl and /etc/alternatives/perl and re-ran apt, which fixed everything whose install was broken. Problem solved, and no reinstalling.
Since then, it appears that more recent versions of the perl5.6 package copy the actual perl binary into /usr/bin/perl (at least on the computer I use most, /usr/bin/perl and /usr/bin/perl5.6.0 have the same size and MD5 hash) so the problem does appear to have been fixed. However, I'm seeing some wierdness in woody that may be associated with the recent switch to package pools. (From what I understand, package pools allow files to move from "unstable" into "testing" without massive quantities of copying any time someone makes a change. This is a more significant development than a "testing" release, in my opinion.)
New poll Topic (Score:1)
Re:I'll switch (Score:1)
Re:Why not frozen? (Score:1)
That's deterministically broken :) (Score:2)
I'd be hard pressed to expalain why, but I pointed this new installation to unstable yesterday. . After letting it run two entire nights, I now find the explanation for behavior and inconsistencies that are beyond what you usually see with unstable . . .
Now how in the world do I back it down from unstable to testing?
Stuff like this is a significant factor in my shift from debian to FreeBSD (no, not the only one; I like the way bsd utilities work better than GNU in most of the cases where I perceive a difference; object to the code-hoarding of the GPL, prefer the ports and makeworld, etc.). But this installlation is supposed to go in the kids computer, and stay pretty much stuck once it stabilizes (and once I get my replacement hard disk for this machine--until then, I keep the drive). FOr what the kids need, running a fairly standard Linux has more advantages than running bsd--ironically, it's binary compatibility with pre-packaged binariess. OH, that's why I went to unstable--I wanted the newere kde for them (and yes, I *am* deliberately ducking the license issues here--you can find plenty elsewhere that I've written aabout that issue)
hawk
unstable not an overall situation (Score:3)
THis new "testing" branch would have solved, I believe, all of the "gotchas" I faced (but probably wouldn't have caught the change in how fvwm functioned; I was apparently the first to file the bug/change, and I think I fought it for more than two week).
hawk
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:1)
I went through the whole picking-modules thing (the dependency mapper is damn neat - automatically determining which packages conflict, which need certain other packages, recommend them or suggest them. I like that a lot) - but the problem didn't pop up until I tried to set up the X server.
There was no option for the GeForce 2 GTS 32Mb. Bit of a bugger, cos that's what I've got right now. I tried both GeForce 256 and GeForce DDR, and the X server ends up either not working or dumping me in 320x200.
This is after trying both entering my monitor settings from the manual, and trying one of the default settings which matched closest. (I have a monitor capable of 1600x1200, so it would have coped.)
The thing I find most confusing is that Red Hat "gets it" every time. I always end up with a pristine 1280x1024 in X under RH. (I think it has GF2 support, mind you.)
Once I can get Deb to behave with the GF2, I'll probably stick with it. Anyone got any ideas how I could sort it out without drowning in source code?
Re:Testing is auto-generated (Score:1)
Yes, the scripts which generate testing deal with it. Dunno what algorithm they use, though.
Re:Devel tree? (Score:1)
Primer
Re:That's deterministically broken :) (Score:2)
>Horrors.
Either that, or force the current poster to read the original post
It's not a question of downgrading a single package, but of the
entire distribution.
Besides, this is debian we're talking about. Expecting useful
things in a man page rather than having to use that wretched info
is hardly rational. In this particular case, the --force-downgrade
is soert of documented, under --force-things, and there's a
downgrade in the list of things.
Anyway, this wouldn't solve the problem of changing over the entire
distribution, and would require manually downloading corresponding
(not always the same) packages from stable over a 14k modem . . .
hawk
Re:That's deterministically broken :) (Score:2)
>unstable, am I really going to have much more than a handful or two
>"bad" packages which will require going back to the original version?[A
yes. there are oodles of packages that depend upon the numbering
in stable. If you're downstepping even small number of packages,
this tends to get you (and the requirements of a certain version
I've found to be wrong more often than not, but how do you know this
ahead of time for an individual package ?)
hawk
Re:That's deterministically broken :) (Score:2)
>easy is downgrading there? (I don't mean downgrading just one package,
>I mean going back a distribution version, or downgrading a suite of
>interconnected packages).
I don't think there is, but I've never felt a need under FreeBSD, as
I have three or four with debian. The central distribution, as a
single piece, is much more comprehnsive (containing the kernel, most
of the utilities (which comve from GNU *and* other places on linuces),
and some other things is a single piece; as far as I know, even
upgrading a single utility is very difficult (you could mess with the
cvs tree and only grab the source for that one, I think, but you're
playing with fire here.). I'd be hard-pressed to do a partial
binary upgrade (and even if you grabbed the pieces, it would be hard
to pull off. You really need to recompile to keep the kernel tables
and utilities (such as ps) in sync.
I want to say that the ports collection is independent of the
stable/current trees entirely. That is, I believe it's a single tree.
As a whole, I prefer it to dpkg/apt, but theres' definitely pieces
I"d like added from the debian side of things.
>
>This is probably a troll, but i'll respond anyway.
Good heavens, I'm old usenet. If I were going to troll, I'd be
far more subtle about it
>AFAIK, there aren't
>any remaining KDE licensing issues with the newer versions of KDE.
>
I'm actually coming from the other direction. Most or all of the
legal problems never really existed. The *only* ones that could
exist were situations (if they existed; I'm told they do, but I've
never verified it) in which GPL code was used in KDE. In spite of
the protestations of the authors, KDE was not GPL, but QGPL (quasi-
GPL). As their actions conflicted with the bolierplate terms of
the license, those terms were not part of the license. As a
legal issue, it is not possible for authors to violate their
own license.
There are many more projects which are QGPL, their authors' statements
of GPL notwithstanding. I wrote the qualification to LyX's license
to handle this a couple of years ago (wow, that long already?).
nice to hear (Score:2)
Re:I'll switch (Score:1)
they are working on installation though...
why are the leading spaces ignored? this post has two leading spaces in the text box where I write this but the ones before first paragraph are ignored when the post is actually posted... (posting as plain old text)
erik
random things breaking not my experience (Score:1)
they both seem to be about as stable as any other linux distro. because of this (and my need for newer packages), i always use unstable these days. sometimes unstable isn't even new enough though. XFree 4 wasn't included in unstable for a long time. i had to compile it myself for a while (yech...).
Re:nice to hear (Score:3)
If you like debian, but want to stay with the times, you could also try something like Storm Linux which is based on Debian, but uses newer snap shot releases.
(Just a Storm/Debian user singing some praises). Good luck Debian team, and keep up those nice releases!
APT The Holy Light (Score:3)
Why not frozen? (Score:1)
Actually I am glad to see it coming out so quickly. I think that was a shorter period than Potato spent in unstable, but than again why I switched over to Debian Potato was already frozen, so I can't really comment on that.
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:1)
In my experience, unstable breaks things quite often - if you're in the habit of upgrading nightly (which, because it's so easy to do, can be very tempting), or even weekly.
The trick that's worked well for me up to now has been to settle on a snapshot that is behaving well, and thenceforth apt-get install the latest and greatest stuff on a package-by-package basis when and if you hear about something new you can't live without.
Now, thanks to the 'testing' tree, I can apt-get upgrade with relative confidence and have the latest versions (well, a fortnight old) of my favourite apps appear automagically without breaking anything. Hopefully.
One more reason to love Debian.
Re:New poll Topic (Score:1)
:)
[duck]
Re:this makes sense only if downgrading was easier (Score:3)
As to what to do with the woody packages you have that are later then the testing versions... well, after you do the above change you could try manually doing "apt-get install " and see what happens. It might do what you want, or it might just say "already have a later version". Never had an instance to try it but it's worth a shot.
Re:Why not frozen? (Score:1)
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:That's deterministically broken :) (Score:2)
WHereas for the last few releases, runining debian unstable will give your random brekaings, as well as sudden, erratic, changes inpolicy that change the way your machine works.
Hence the 'unstable' tag. The unstable branch is often quite stable, but if they have to do major changes in packages or policy, that's the only place they have to put it, and such changes can be destabilizing.
Now how in the world do I back it down from unstable to testing?
That is, IMHO, the biggest thing really missing from Debian, an easy way to downgrade. Then again, I haven't seen any easier downgrades in other distributions either. You seem to be familiar with FreeBSD, how easy is downgrading there? (I don't mean downgrading just one package, I mean going back a distribution version, or downgrading a suite of interconnected packages).
OH, that's why I went to unstable--I wanted the newere kde for them
There are two safer ways for that. KDE has an alternate distribution point for Debian packages of new KDE binaries for running on potato at http://kde.tdyc.com/ [tdyc.com]. Secondly, you could have downloaded the KDE packages from woody and installed them on potato with dpkg.
Since downgrading is hard, I'd recommend against people going to an unstable distribution just because they want newer versions of a few packages.
yes, I *am* deliberately ducking the [KDE] license issues here
This is probably a troll, but i'll respond anyway. AFAIK, there aren't any remaining KDE licensing issues with the newer versions of KDE. Qt has been released under the GPL, and so there is no longer the QPL/GPL license conflicts. That is why it is now being distributed in Debian.
Yes, I read RMS's letter after the release. It was not saying that new KDE releases had a licensing problem. It was reminding that past KDE releases did, and showing the best way for KDE developers to protect themselves from hypothetical lawsuits based on using non-KDE GPL code in past KDE releases from when there was a licensing problem. It was also based on the assumption that KDE reused a lot of GPL code from non-KDE projects, which KDE's response made clear was not the case. Regardless, RMS's comments did not describe a licensing problem with distributing new KDE binaries based on a GPLed Qt. I certainly don't see any licensing problem there, and the Debian distributors apparently agree.
I am very happy, and one of these days will actually get around to playing with KDE on a system to see what I like and dislike about it compared to other options (have to do that with XFCE and UDE also while I'm at it).
----
Some suggestions for next time something breaks... (Score:3)
How many times do you read on slashdot "oh yeah I couldn't install the matrix windomaker theme
HUH?????
When you get a smudge on your windshield do you trade your car in for a new one?
Help is available!
Next time something breaks, look for a mailing list for that app and search the archives, try jumping on irc.debian.org #debian, do a web search... nine times out of ten there are other people experiencing the same problem who are more than willing to help.
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:1)
You're tired of Slashdot ads? Get junkbuster [junkbusters.com] now!
Re:I'll switch (Score:1)
You're tired of Slashdot ads? Get junkbuster [junkbusters.com] now!
Re:Fuck You! (Score:1)
Re:That's deterministically broken :) (Score:1)
Unless the package is a required package, why can't you simply remove the unstable package and install it again at the desired revision?
(Or, if your configuration needs are simple, you can always purge the package and reinstall it.)
--
Re:APT The Holy Light (Score:1)
Re:That's deterministically broken :) (Score:1)
$ dpkg -i --force-downgrade package_low-version.deb
Of course, that would require the original poster to read the man pages. Horrors.
Re:APT The Holy Light (Score:3)
for example, apt-get update && apt-get upgrade broke my X server for 1 week when woody changed from 3.3.6 to 4.02RC-3..that sucked.
Actually, that's not APT's fault at all. Woody is the UNSTABLE tree. Things do break within Woody. That will be less of a problem now that Woody is moving to the Testing tree, but it can still happen. Potato (stable) is the tree where you should expect things NOT to break like that. I run Potato on production boxes, and find that it really doesn't break.
If not breaking is more important than having the very latest bleeding edge stuff, switch to Potato and add the security.debian.org updates to sources. If you want a mostly stable system but NEED the latest and greatest something, you can allways go with potato and attempt a 'Potato and a half' config with a few packages from Woody (or compile from source to minimize Woody dependancies).
It's good to see the tree up (Score:4)
Testing is auto-generated (Score:4)
Basically, the testing distribution is "maintained" by an automatic script, which contains all packages which have been in the unstable (i.e. development) distribution for two weeks without a release critical bug being filed, subject to satisfying package dependencies. The idea is that testing might be buggy, but should be up-to-date and not completely broken. See here [debian.org] for more detail and precision.
Re:Randomly break? (Score:1)
If Slashdot disappeared (because this is where the idiots like you post, though linuxnews.com is quite rabid also), never to return, Linux advocacy would take a huge jump forward.
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:1)
they both seem to be about as stable as any other linux distro. because of this (and my need for newer packages), i always use unstable these days. sometimes unstable isn't even new enough though. XFree 4 wasn't included in unstable for a long time. i had to compile it myself for a while (yech...).
I used Debian woody for a while, but apt once installed perl-5.6, and it totally screwed up the dpkg config system. I had to go back to Mandrake (though I don't particularly like 7.2). Has anyone else had a problem with the perl 5.6 package? Is it fixed yet?
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:1)
Re:That's deterministically broken :) (Score:2)
It's hard to downgrade a distribution (eg. from Woody to Potato). It's almost as hard to downgrade a suite of interconnected packages with a lot of dependencies (eg, the GNOME or KDE base packages).
----
Re:Testing is auto-generated (Score:1)
Remember: it's moving "unbroken" packages, and a package with unmet dependencies is broken by definition.
Re:Exciting user-created Debian advertisements! (Score:1)
Re:respectable (Score:1)
___
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:2)
Re:I'll switch (Score:2)
Actually, don't you also have to have the three driver disks to install your network driver, assuming that you want a network install (versus a CD install, which presumably wouldn't need additional drivers)?
He said CD or network, so your answer was correct if you treat his question as a boolean expression. :)
Re:That's deterministically broken :) (Score:1)
*chuckle*
As the second person to reply to my comment points out, though, there's no easy way to downgrade the entire distribution.
On the other hand, if all you have are a handful of bad packages, then the dpkg option is all you need. Realistically, if I do "upgrade" to unstable, am I really going to have much more than a handful or two "bad" packages which will require going back to the original version?
--
Re:random things breaking not my experience (Score:1)
Re:Why not frozen? (Score:1)
Re:A major step forward (Score:2)
Just promise me you never put up a web-cam.