Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Debian Software Linux

The Grumpy Groundhog - Ubuntu for Developers 56

**loki969** writes "Ubuntu is planing a "cutting edge"-distro, 'The Grumpy Groundhog', which will be aimed explicitly at developers. Here is a quote from their site: 'Upstream development in the open source world moves at a tremendous pace. Many developers like to keep up to date with specific upstream products, but the work involved in building from CVS every day is substantial. With The Grumpy Groundhog Project, Ubuntu provides those developers with a ready source of packages containing the latest upstream code. '"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Grumpy Groundhog - Ubuntu for Developers

Comments Filter:
  • by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @02:57PM (#12399685)
    Uh oh. If Hoary is a rough equivalent of Debian Experimental, then the developer-only Grumpy is...?
    • by Bachus9000 ( 765935 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @03:02PM (#12399732)
      First of all, Ubuntu's development branch starts off from Unstable, not Experimental. Second of all, by the time that development branch (in this case, Hoary) is released six months later it is quite stable (or should be, anyway--I haven't really had problems personally). I'd say Grumpy would be more like experimental myself, but then again I'm not a troll...
      • Yes, it's based on Unstable -- but with a lot of unofficial packages being thrown in. I personally learnt to trust random repositories as much as I trust rabid dogs. If it's anything more than a single package without any dependencies (like micq), the interoperability with other packages is usually shot. This applies to some degree even to Christian Marillat's packages, one of the best repositories.

        Debian developers are extremely cautious. They don't usually package a given piece of software until mont
          • Yes, that's a valid point. But, unless you have any local users, you're limited to just a few packages. It's a bit burdensome, but the @#$%^&* ISDN crap would take too many backports. I phased it out from all but one box so in theory I can downgrade to Woody, but, with the freeze promised in <10 days [] (yeah, sure) I'll just keep watching the security lists myself.
        • This makes them picked on by the rest of Linux world for "outdated, ancient software", but thanks to their policies I can run Debian Testing on production servers

          Whoa there... You shouldn't run testing on servers. Testing is a middle-ground between stable and unstable. Unstable gets all the latest and greatest fixes. Stable has a security team. Testing has none of the above.

          If there is a security problem, the security team will take care of it in stable, and because unstable is the development branch,

      • Ubuntu may be based on unstable, but they add packages that are just now making it into Experimental, which is basically only used for GNOME & KDE, new gcc versions and other widely used products. Personally, I think that the experimental distribution should be eliminated, as this is what unstable is for. If that doesn't sit well with you, then I can only suggest using testing and enforcing the existing rules on entering testing.

        No other distro I know of is using 2.6.10 by default, and 2.6.11 apparentl
        • unstable is meant to provide a mostly usable system that automated scripts can feed into testing. (IE unstable should only be unstable in terms of the fact that is can change at any time sometimes with breakage not unstable as in unusable)

          experimental is for trying out REALLY radical stuff like new x servers developement versions of apt etc

          • How does a "mostly usable system that automated systems can feed into testing" help development? I recall some time ago that Debian held unstable hostage until a new stable was released, because developers were simply ignoring RC bugs. Unstable should not be considered a mostly stable system.

            Really radical stuff should be tested before its even uploaded to experimental. Seriously, I think developers should be running testing. Every developer running unstable should be considered a vote to drop support for
            • unstable is where most contibutions are uploaded so it seems perfectly natural for developers to run the system they are compiling and uploading packages to

              testing was and will be (its not right now because debian is in final release freeze) the place where the next stable release is built up. Unless pacakges had problems then prior to the recent freeze they should have made it from unstable to testing in less than two weeks. Hardly an eternity.

              i'm not sure what you mean by holding unstable hostage? sure
    • A squirrel-esque animal with attitude..
      The ubuntu team do alot of good work , they managed to pull off release scheduals which Debian proper hasn't beeen able to achive and have it stable out of the door(not that debian unstable is that unstable).So i would expect it to be on par with Debian unstable Stability wise(Debian really needs to change the names for a few things )
      (though i love the release names , i suggested Ahstmatic Aardvark but it was rejected)
    • Hoary is the current release. Consider it the same as Debian Stable
      for all intents. It may differ in practice, though ;)
  • by pdevor ( 603443 ) <> on Sunday May 01, 2005 @04:11PM (#12400316) Homepage
    I'm using Ubuntu right now as I type this. I think that if Ubuntu keeps growing at this rate, it will cause some other distros to die off. That's good because if the linux community is less divided among different distros, we won't be reinventing the wheel as much.
    • i think you are right about the growth of ubuntu. it really is a fine distro. but i don't think, that this will kill of any other distros. and in my book, having less choices, isn't a good thing either!
      • Hmm, there definitely is something to be said for having choices of distro... On the other hand, there is the choice of having one really great distro supported by an enormous community that increases the number of people using linux or having many smaller distros that are good, but not great. Maybe the answer is a compromise--kill off only some of the distros, thus providing both an excellent distro(s) as well as still providing a decent amount of choice.
    • Like Knoppix, it sort of tried to work on boot. Installing it is another story. Once on a hard drive, I come at it from the position of a newbie from Windows land and judge them then once the "boot from a CD coolness" has gone away. Knoppix is like shaving with a dull Mach 3 razor and Ubuntu like shaving with a dull Mach 3 razor that is missing one blade. (Side observation: sounds unpleasantly like Ububu, and the implied haughtiness of using an African name is cheesy marketing at best. You could use any non
  • Will these be bloated unoptimized debug builds? Or small optimized builds?
    • Its the development version, so probably the first one. Just like Hoary when its was in the development branch. Same concept, they just decieded to give that branch a name so that future names of Ubuntu releases only refer to stable versions...
  • by l3v1 ( 787564 )
    Ahem, just one quick: if this is an article on Ubuntu, then why is there the Debian logo beside the title ?

    • Debian and Ubuntu are linked, ie Ubuntu Linux is derived from Debian Linux; and Ubuntu and Debian share developers and/or former Debian people are involved now with Ubuntu.

What sin has not been committed in the name of efficiency?