Interview: Ask the Debian Project Leader 192
Wichert Akkerman, our interview guest this week, describes himself: "I'm a simple MSc Computer Science student who likes to work on Linux projects. I have been the Debian Project leader since February and that has taken most of my time. Debian is a project to produce a completely free operating system and as such we currently have a GNU/Linux distribution and are working on GNU/HURD as well." So ask away. One question per post, please. Moderators & assorted others will select the 10 - 15 questions we forward to Wichert Tuesday afternoon. His answers will appear Friday.
Question (Score:2)
Feedback from Corel (Score:5)
To what extent are you seeing Corel feeding back these changes to the Debian community? How good for Debian has Corel been, so far?
Debian BSD (Score:3)
Maintainers (Score:3)
Ports Out, so Starboard Home? (Score:4)
Is Debian looking to concentrate on a small set of well-established architectures, or are we going to see Debian for every conceivable environment that Linux can run under?
dpkg, apt interfaces (Score:1)
Volunteering (Score:5)
What's the best way to get involved with the Debian project? Do you have a list of tasks that need to be done along with the required skills?
I ask because that seems to be one barrier keeping more people from helping out various free software projects -- they don't know where to start. If we could point to a list and say "The boot disks need testing; we expect these error messages:" or "The foo package has these ugly functions that need to be rewritten:" it would give us more concrete goals to reach.
--
Packaging Front End (Score:5)
With the things that have been learned from those attempts, is there likely to be some sort of dselect-ng ?
When will KDE be included in Debian? (Score:5)
Also, do you feel it is better to keep Linux entirely DSFG free software only, or to include software in some way restricted, such as Pine, Qt 1.x and Netscape?
Choose HURD over Linux? (Score:5)
RPM vs. dpkg (Score:5)
Free as in... (Score:3)
new-maintainer troubles (Score:1)
GNU/HURD (Score:3)
dpkg, The Hurd, and FreeBSD. (Score:5)
1. Eric Raymond has stated (during a speech, NYC :) that he believes that the Debian project is making it difficult for Linux to adopt a standard packaging system. What do you have to say in response?
2. I'm rather disturbed by the GNU Hurd's Debian-like appearance now. I was hoping for a radically different OS but I was disappointed with seeing a different underlying OS that still looks much like Debian. Does Debian have a legitimate reason for doing this?
3. Now from the GNU Hurd to Debianizing FreeBSD. My only question is: Why? Does this help improve the state of the world or simply help glorify Debian itself? I don't see a practical reason for doing this.
I am trying to understand your motives. Not ridicule them. Thank you for your time.
Slow release cycle (Score:5)
Debian GNU/FreeBSD (Score:5)
BSD/HURD and others... (Score:2)
First of all, thanks a lot (to you and to the rest of the Debian team) for an oustanding job!
Several quick questions:
(A) What is exactly the BSD/Debian project? What are its goals? Is it officially supported by the Debian project, or is it just some sort of personal projects for some Debian programmers?
(B) When can we expect a release of the GNU/HURD? Do you think the HURD is the next great thing and that we'll all have to leave Linux/*BSD to install it on our machines?
(C) On a more personal note... how do you manage all this work? Jolt, Coca-Cola, designer drugs or just good old plain caffeine? Do you receive extra credit for working on Debian during your studies? =)
Thanks again -- keep up the good work!
Release time of potato (Score:1)
Why was he not informed and announced a release date which they had to correct. (Current release date is in mid January)
Corel & download age restrictions? (Score:4)
Re:Volunteering (Score:3)
Check out:
IMHO one of the best things about Debian is its openness, not just in terms of Open Source, but things like:
Deviant Debian distributions (Score:3)
Given the problems experienced with Corel Linux, which is known to be "based on Debian", what are your feelings on having other distributions derived from Debian - in particular, how 'far' away from the original should they go and is there any preference in direction that they take?
Debian and FreeBSD (Score:1)
If there is a plan to port software, how do you plan on submitting the code? Will you use the normal method and promote the current cvsup system? How does the Debian project see FreeBSD as an OS? Are there plans to implement current features of this software into Debian?
Minor Release more often? (Score:2)
At what point will potato be released, and what revision number will it have? It seems to me it would have been better to have released potato a long time ago, and release 'sub-releases' often to keep up to date, instead of waiting for that never-to-be-seen 100% perfect release.
'Release Often' is a term often used to describe Open Source projects, but it doesn't seem to apply to Debian. Just sticking in 'beta' forever.
No need for speed? (Score:2)
The current stable debian distribution "slink", is still based on the 2.0.x kernel, while the other big players couldn't adopt 2.2.x fast enough just because of the version number. With the 2.4 kernel just around the corner, how will Debian be able to compete with i.e. Red Hat, as they even might launch the next version with the 2.4 kernel as the Debian maintainers are still working on getting potato out the door?
What are the plans to do something about it? Hon the lot of geeks that are eager to help out join in, or what are the criteria or needed skills? Does one have to be an über-geek to get in?
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
Is debian getting too big? (Score:5)
There are many packages and they are getting more and more. ("What? There is a new window manager? - Package it!") - I don't think this is the responsibility of a distribution.
A distribution should be the base system to run linux. Every more advanced system should be installed by the unix administrator.
To make it even more worse, packages like netstd get split up in many others and packages which should be split, don't. (Look at tetex-bin. You only need xlib6g because there is xdvi in it. - If you drop xdvi in it's own package you don't have to install xlib6g and xbase on your servers)
What will you be taking from other distributions? (Score:4)
--
Question (Score:1)
It would be one thing if he just requested that people add the GNU to the name -- the fact that he berates people who don't disgusts me. Why does Debian pander to such behavior?
Thanks for your time, Wichert.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Release Dates and Politics (Score:1)
Perhaps directly affected by this, the Debian releases, although rock solid, are usually very far apart. (yes, I know there's always unstable)
It may be good that things undergo lengthy review; however is there some sort of middle ground that must be reached? What are your thoughts on the above?
Thanks!
Updates to current stable releases (Score:5)
Is there any provision being made to allow for and support a more aggressive backporting of newly released software in current, stable releases, such as newer versions of xmms, netscape, mozilla, and so forth?
I understand and recognize that some software (e.g. gcc, glibc, X, perl) may affect too many other dependent packages to be supported in both stable and development trees, but other software such as xmms and enlightenment don't fall into that category at all, yet debian packages often are never created to support the current stable release.
Size (Score:5)
Debian's development model (Score:1)
model is somewhat slow compared to the release
cycles of commercial Linux distributors.
There is IMHO the danger that Debian falls
behind against commercial Linux distributors.
Could more (benevolent) dictatorship and less
democracy help Debian to release solid code faster?
--
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
This (from http://www.debian.org/social_contract [debian.org]) may partly answer your question. However, I wish I could get apt-get et al. to allow me to install from the non-free sections but always warn me when I request to do so.
Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for this software. The software in these directories is not part of the Debian system, although it has been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of software packages in these directories and determine if they can distribute that software on their CDs. Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software packages.
Debian bureaucracy (Score:5)
Rethinking release cycle (Score:2)
- akop
Debian and the FreeBSD kernel (Score:3)
worlds as to what the `natural unit' of an operating system is. In
the Linux world it seems that the kernel is regarded as the operating
system, and the various different distributions are regarded as
flavours of Linux with their component parts being expected to be as
interchangeable as possible.
In the BSD world the whole distribution as deployed is held to be
the OS, and moving a piece of software from one distribution to
another has a bit of the flavour of a port. I think there are
advanatages to the BSD way of looking at things, since some properties
of OSs, especially security, make sense only when applied to the
system as a whole.
I am concerned, therefore, that the port of the Debian distribution
to the FreeBSD kernel might undermine this view. Is the Debian port
going to be positioned as an entirely new branch of BSD (say
DebianBSD), or is it going to be regarded more in the Linux way of
doing things? If the latter, how seriously do the Debian team take
these cultural differences between the BSD and Linux world? Who do
you see as your target user?
Developer conflict (Score:1)
appliance revolution (Score:3)
Cross-platform Priorities (Score:1)
SoupIsGood Food
Re:Size (Score:1)
eww, check your facts before posting.
Re:Debian GNU/FreeBSD (Score:3)
If a FreeBSD/Debian amalgamation were to take shape, the WORST thing that could happen would be to base the distribution around the GNU libc.
This would make binary compatibility with standard FreeBSD a nightmare, and would hamper the performance of the systems that would run such a distribution. Imagine two big C libraries, two different versions of each library depending on which C library is used, etc. Memory consumption would be phenomenal, and there is really no good reason to do it, anyway. The FreeBSD libc is at least as capable as the GNU libc, is maintained by a conscientious set of developers whose goals are quality, stability, and robustness, and just, in general, rocks.
Don't further pollute a FreeBSD-based Debian by making the mistake of putting GNU libc in the mix. PLEASE.
Besides, porting a libc to a different kernel is not a terribly trivial task. Why do all that extra work when the work has already been done for you, and the results are useable by everyone and their dog?
--Corey
Is the HURD alive? (Score:3)
I've been following the development of the HURD for one or two years now, and I haven't seen much change in it. Do you expect the HURD ever going to be finished in the sense that it can be used in a serious way?
Cheers,
Martin van Boven
KDElibs inclusion in Debian. (Score:1)
However, at least two of the packages removed, kdesupport and kdelibs, were not licensed under the GPL, but under the LGPL.
So, regardless of wether it was correct or not to remove kdebase/utils/etc, why were these two packages removed?
If these two packages were removed by mistake, what are the chances of them being reinstated?
Please notice that I have personally released at least two package that could be part of debian if kdelibs and kdesupport were not removed.
What is Debian (Score:4)
size/speed of Debian (Score:5)
1) it seems Debian will forever be compiled i486,
and thus never benefit from the oft-huge speed increase of egcs/pgcc
2) the size and growth rate of Debian are, IMHO,
inexcusable. The main section no longer fits on one CD!
If it were just #1, I could probably live with it and just install a seperate compiler and library to compile and run the apps that I really need the speed from. But #2 is just nuts. The multi-CD method of install is very rough and difficult to figure out / use, and installing via ftp is simply not an option for those of us with 28.8 modems. Worse yet, this has caused the pace of Debian to slow to a crawl. "Stable" released versions contains libraries and apps of ancient (by the linux time scale) version, and the dependency structure of dpkg makes substituting self-compiled versions effectively impossible. In short, it's very difficult to have a Debian system that is at all current.
So, my questions are these:
1. Is the Debian project planning, at any point, to create a Pentium-optimized release?
2. Is the Debian project planning, at any point,
to create something like a Debian-lite, that includes only a core of packages such as commonly used libraries, X, popular user agents such as mutt, lftp, and lynx, essential and popular server daemons like sendmail, yp[stuff], nfs, and apache...? Basically, a distro of similar size to the more popular distros that fit easily onto one CD.
If Debian were to do those things, which I see as modernizing and streamlining respectively, I would switch back (or at least try it out in vmware =]).
MoNsTeR
Re:Updates to current stable releases (Score:2)
You could always build the newer package yourself. Just use apt-get source ... to fetch the Debian-ized source code (from unstable), and then run debian/rules binary to compile and build a .deb file.
You could leave your sources.list pointing to the stable binaries but the unstable sources to achieve this.
(With the unstable version of apt, you can even use apt-get -b source ... to fetch and build automatically.)
Re:Volunteering (Score:2)
That's a good place to start, thank you! I'd seen the bug tracking system before, and it's also good.
I guess what I was looking for is a place that says something like "Package X could use someone with Perl knowledge to write an installer script" or "Package Y could use a C graphics guru to optimize and prettify these functions." It's a lot of details to keep track of, I know, but it may save a lot of work later.
--
Just an idea... (Score:2)
** A lot of open source projects make projections about when a new release will be made or one atleast knows the next version number obviously. Why not build a distribution in the following manner.
(1) Look at the open-source projects included in your distro or that you want to include. Look at your current distro set your new distro to include the next versions of open-source projects you currently include or plan to include. Make that your goal for the distro and when it is reached, up your version number and set a new set of goals.
(2) All the while, maintain your current stable and basically keep upgrading it with updates with the intent of meeting your goals for the new distro version. Once it is met, your current stable goes up one version number.
(3) Allow the users to set their version level. Maybe they don't want to touch packages above the goal of their current distro. They don't need the latest windowmaker, icewm, gnome, etc.
Basically, your current stable is a set of open-source project versions (kernel 2.0.36, GTK 1.2, etc.) that interoperate together. Then you have additional packages that fit into your new distro such as kernel 2.2.12, 2.3.18, etc.) A lot more testing would be required, but considering the larger developer base debian seems to be getting, it might make better use of the resource. This is in no way a totally developed thought. You may have already considered something like what I described, assuming what I described makes any sense at all.
Releases... (Score:2)
Jumping the HURDle (Score:3)
What exactly would it take to ramp up work on the HURD so that *Debian/HURD* actually becomes reality... or maybe the question should be "is there no Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox for the lowly HURD??"
Keeping current with kernel releases (Score:3)
I've seen a number of comments already dealing with this subject but none have asked specifically what I want to know. As a new user to linux if anyone has a simple answer to my question, please answer
I've been wanting to try Debian for awhile now, the only thing holding me back is the tendency for Debian to fall behind by one current kernel release. With the upcoming release of pototo based on the 2.2 Kernel as well as the 2.4 kernel is Debian destined to fall behind once again? Are there any plans to adjust the release schedules or come up with a new release system to keep more up to date with the new software we're seeing more frequently?
IMO opinion most of the die hard Linux fans are faithful devotees of Debian yet they also want to be on the bleeding edge. It seems to me Debain would benefit greatly by keeping more up to date even if it was with sub-releases incorperating things such as KDE 2.0 and the 2.4 kernel. As I said before I'm releatively new to Linux and since I've had literally no experience I would not be surprised to find all of this is easily solved with dpkg or something similar. Please let me know if it can be.
LiNT
Re:Question (Score:1)
Actually, there was a story on Slashdot a while back about RedHat doing just that -- releasing something called RMS/Linux.
Slashdot's story can be found here [slashdot.org].
Personally, its not my cup of tea. I'm more into my Linuxes working well than being 110% open-source. But that's just me, and that's why I use Mandrake and KDE. :)
In fact, a good question for the Debian people would be: Would you ever consider bundling a seriously closed-source package with the distribution? At what point would the ends (say, hundred of thousands of sales) justify the means for you guys/gals personally. Would you ever, if you'll forgive the tackiness of the phrase, sell your soul?
Re:Size (Score:1)
Right now, installing Debian takes a couple of hours. Is any work being done on improving the install process? Is any work being done on making package management less interactive (answer all of the config questions either before or after install, rather than during).
Yes, debconf [kitenet.net] will allow either of these to be done, as well as limiting the questions you see to only the most important ones.
--
New maintainers (Score:1)
The publicly stated reason for closing new-maintainers was so that existing packages could be maintained better (did I get that right?). Are things any better now? It seems to me to be a non-sequitor that you can improve the maintainance of existing packages by preventing new people from joining - but maybe I am missing something here. At what point will you decide that packages are being maintained well enough so that new maintainers can be reopened? Couldnt whatever course of actions that you took upon closing new-maintainers also have been executed with new-maintainers still open?
Re:secure version of debian (Score:1)
> (ie hardening scripts and other tools.)
I disagree that the application of scripts can take an OS that has not been audited and turn it into one that is "secure".
IMO, you need to go back and look at every single interface to every single routine, you need to go back and look at every single call of functions that are known to be typically mis-used (e.g., gets() instead of fgets()) and either replace them or ensure that they're used safely, and you have to start incorporating the security-minded thought process in all the code that gets committed from that point on (so that a routine that has been secured doesn't get broken by a later commit). You also need to follow all this up with a system of checks and balances, so that if you happen to miss something at one stage in the process, it's likely to get caught at another stage.
It is my understanding that this is basically what happend with OpenBSD, and is the reason why they have *never* had a security breach in a piece of the core OS (e.g., something from
That said, there is Bastille Linux, which I understand hopes to become the OpenBSD of the Linux world. But it's based on Red Hat. It would seem to me that it would be much more natural to base it on a much more solid distribution (such as Debian). As such, my personal opinion is that they're starting two strikes down, and with both arms and one leg tied behind their back.
So, to mirror and expand upon the above question, are there any plans to create a security/crypto-oriented distribution based on Debian, or perhaps efforts to modify the Debian development methodology so that not only does all the core code get audited, but the audit process gets built into the development and commit process?
FreeBSD (Score:1)
Re:secure version of debian (Score:1)
I wouldn't hold my breath. Linux is a good desktop OS, but too many quick patches add on;s and compromises have already been made to consider it a strong contender for security 'deep down'.
FreeBSD and OpenBSD take great care looking at what code goes into the kernal - it is not just a matter of setting permissions and turning off services. With BSD you knwo you aren't running 'raw' code some 15 year old hacked onto a driver someplace.
not quite sure where to put this... (Score:1)
it probably isn't a very good one for this topic,
but I couldn't find the package description, as
the package is no longer part of Debian. I was
wondering why Debian dropped the Grail web
browser. I'd like to contact the former Debian
maintainer for Grail, if possible; however,
the package description isn't available at the
Debian web site, since the package was dropped.
Any suggestions, anyone?
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
However, I wish I could get apt-get et al. to allow me to install from the non-free sections but always warn me when I request to do so.
Then add it. I've poked around in the apt sources, and this should take about 5 minutes to add to apt-get. Now that you've mentioned it, my frontend (<PLUG/aptitude [sourceforge.net]/) may gain this ability..
Daniel
Re:dpkg, apt interfaces (Score:1)
Re:Is debian getting too big? (Score:1)
I don't think I agree, or at least, I don't think the size is the cause of the management problems with the Debian project. They have had similar problems back in the 0.93 release and probably before that too.
There are many packages and they are getting more and more. ("What? There is a new window manager? - Package it!") - I don't think this is the responsibility of a distribution.
A distribution should be the base system to run linux. Every more advanced system should be installed by the unix administrator.
Well, that is your opinion, but I disagree. I see no reason why every administrator should duplicate their efforts by doing all the configuration, patch applying and integration for "every more advanced system."
That is one of the things I like about Debian, if there is a useful program out there, then chances are it has already been packaged and that makes my life easier.
To make it even more worse, packages like netstd get split up in many others and packages which should be split, don't. (Look at tetex-bin. You only need xlib6g because there is xdvi in it. - If you drop xdvi in it's own package you don't have to install xlib6g and xbase on your servers)
Your example of tetex-bin might be a legitimate complaint, I'm not sure, there might be technical reasons why xdvi has to be there.
However, in general, I don't have a problem with lots of small packages. The required packages are automatically selected for you, so you just select the programs you want, and it makes no difference to me if it needs 1 or 1000 other packages to be installed.
Re:Question (Score:1)
Good point. There is no doubting the contribution that RMS has made to the free software world... but he is a political radical in his own way.
Trying to stick "GNU" onto the name Linux is exactly in keeping with his philosophy of "virus like" methods of influencing things. It's kind of like he is applying the GPL to even the NAMES of distributions.
"If you use GNU code, I get to tell you what to call yourself!"
Re:Releases... (Score:1)
FreeBSD shoots for three to four releases per year, but the problem we typically have is that there are usually problems with the CD-ROM images as they were released (they won't boot on some machines, or don't recognize the Ethernet cards, or whatever), and the -RELEASE versions are almost always out-of-date within days after being created.
Instead, if you want an actual working version that fixes a couple of major problems in -RELEASE, you instead need to pick up the most recent -STABLE.
There are plans to try to fix this problem, so that -RELEASE is more useful out-of-the-jewel-box, but I suspect that there are still going to be a lot of people that buy (or otherwise get) the -RELEASE CD-ROMs, but never bother to even take off the shrink-wrap.
I guess it's a good way to support the project, but it doesn't seem to be a really good way to develop and distribute an OS. It seems to me that there should instead be three main branches:
-RELEASE, which gets made as rock-solid stable as possible, and although important bug-fixes get created (and patches released), no really new functionality gets added. Today, the best you can do in this arena is to run the previous major release down (e.g., -RELEASE is currently on 3.x, so you would instead run the latest 2.x version available), but this isn't a real fix for the problems.
-STABLE, which is -RELEASE plus some additional functionality, bug fixes, etc..., but no really huge architectural changes. This is pretty much -STABLE today.
-CURRENT, which is the absolute latest bleeding-edge version, and if you run it, you get what you deserve. There's absolutely no guarantees that the thing will ever even compile, much less run or even function according to design. If you want this, you damn well better track the freebsd-current and cvs-commit mailing lists religiously, cvsup RELENG_4 nightly, etc.... And don't forget wear your Nomex(tm) jammies if you ever want to post to any of the mailing lists. Again, this is pretty much -CURRENT today.
Are there any plans for such a three-pronged development track for Debian?
Job duties? (Score:1)
What are your job duties?
Like:
Do you make executive decisions for debian?
Do you just keep organization?
Do you handle legal maters?
Etc..., refering back to the orginal question, what are your duties?
side question- describe a typical day, week, month?
Steve Bibayoff
ps I know I asked two questions, but there close enough to the same.
Re:Keeping current with kernel releases (Score:1)
For the most part this solves what you are talking about. The reason that Debain is always so 'behind' is because they put much more emphasis on distribution stability than other distributions do. They cross test packages and whatnot making sure everything is inter-compatible before releasing. This ensures a rock solid distribution, albiet a tad bit out of date.
Hope that helped out a bit. Debian isn't for everybody. It certainly is not the easiest to use. But the features that really make it shine in my opinion is the power of apt, and the dpkg system, automatic menu updating with debian adjusted window managers, among other things.
Debian, my true love (Score:1)
the size and growth rate of Debian are, IMHO, inexcusable. The main section no longer fits on one CD!
IMHO, this is the beauty of Debian. As they are all volunteers there really is no way that Debian would not be huge. Why you ask? I'll tell you. People contribute what they like. In a company like redhat those in charge can say "stop fiddling with that HURD project and give us a hand".
In the Debian world if those in charge said something similiar the HURD group would give them the finger and continue their work. They are all volunteers doing what they do because they love it. They're not being paid by anyone and really have no deadlines save those that are self-imposed. Debian's size will continue to grow very quickly so long as people have diverse interests (and we know they do... I say linux, you say freebsd, etc, etc)
My questions: When will Debian again be accepting new Developers, because you've got someone in Maine ready to give you a hand.
btw- I really think pentium optimization is a great idea, even though I read somewhere the speed increase is minimal.
Corel Distro - User Friendly (Score:3)
Source-.debs (Score:1)
Dependencies and optimization (Score:1)
ta to slashdot for the good interview.
to the debian people:
i really like the
Re:dpkg, The Hurd, and FreeBSD. (Score:2)
I can't speak for Debian, but the fact that the two distributions are called GNU/Linux and GNU/HURD seems to give a clue as to their intentions. They are both essentially the GNU OS, but differ in their choice of kernel.
Re:Is debian getting too big? (Score:3)
I strongly disagree with this. To me the joy of Debian is that any program I want is already available, correctly configured for my system, and I don't have to do any more than
apt-get install package_name
to install it.
Specifically -- parisc and optimized x86?? (Score:1)
shell now (see http://www.thepuffingroup.com/parisc/weekly)
Do you think on an architecture so far out of the
mainstream there will be enough developers to create
a distro? Also, feelings are split as far as
optimizing for ix86 chipset families -- have any
groups formed to do so, and do you think a consensus
will emerge in favor of supporting optimized build
rules for arch-i586 and friends, if not distributing
the binaries themselves, can be reached?
Re:Is debian getting too big? (Score:1)
That's why the model of splitting the distribution from the applications is a good idea.
Look at FreeBSD's port collection. This is _not_ the best solution, but it is a beginning. It may be an option to create a core debian and the application-debian around it. This way people will have a stable distribution released every few months (the developers of this stable distro don't have to think about the applications). The applications will be available somewhere else. (That's possible with apt-get)
I just think that it's not good for debian as a whole to be that big. There are just too many bugs which are _not_ related to the core distribution.
There were many threads about that on debian-devel and I don't want to discuss that here. It was only an idea for a question.
Re:dpkg, apt interfaces (Score:2)
I'm also working on a frontend (so my opinion is not objective!), but I don't want to say anything else until the next release as all its nice features, including downloading packages (rather important for a package manager) are currently vapor; I know pretty much how I'm going to implement them but final exams are happening
Daniel
Debian development not fun anymore ? (Score:1)
Egoine.
Re:Is the HURD alive? (Score:1)
There is nobody working on GNU Hurd full-time. That's why it is so slow. But marcus invests _much_ time into it since 1996 (if I remember correctly) and is doing a _great_ job.
Re:Updates to current stable releases (Score:2)
Look (in the list archives of -devel and -project) at the recent discussion of "package pools". Essentially they are an attempt to make the archive much more flexible and make it easier to release multiple versions of a package with differing stability levels, etc. Wichert will probably tell you more when he replies, assuming your post gets sent to him (hope it does!)
Daniel
What do you say to a new Debian person? (Score:2)
With Slink being SO out of date(based on a 2.0.x kernel for starters), that's not an option to install. I need stuff like XFree86 3.3.5 for my voodoo3, some programs need to be run on a 2.2.x kernel, etc. So I decided to just point to Potato and install from there. The Potato install scripts crashed on me 3 times in a row(yes I know it's "unstable") and I finally Just re-installed RedHat 6.1.
So my question. What do you say to someone that wants to use debian, but Slink is out of date, and Potato won't install? It possible to just install Slink and "apt-get dist update" and point to Potato after a successful Slink install? How does one do a freah install of Debian now, and have an up-to-date system(2.2.13, XFree86 3.3.5, etc.)?
Re:When will KDE be included in Debian? (Score:2)
There is a project [tdyc.com] which packages KDE for a number of different distros, including Debian. You can add it as a source under /etc/apt/sources.list if you want to add KDE or KDE-based packages to your system, see here [tdyc.com] for more info.
don't forget ppc (Score:4)
there's a PPC section of the Potato part of the debian ftp site, but it doesn't have a lot of support, and last time i checked there was _no_ documentation. and potato's supposedly unstable anyway.
Please, please say this will eventually come to be a full distribution. i would _really_ rather have debian on this here mac than the quasi-redhat that is linuxppc. Not to mention that linuxppc's distribution, well, isn't perfect. there are a _lot_ of things broken right out of the box. It would be nice to have something resembling an alternative.
Phrasing the question a little better ... (Score:2)
Since you are working on both Linux (established) and the HURD (experimental), what new mechanisms, facilities or areas do you see the HURD opening up in future years beyond the Unix space that is covered by Linux?
Quick 'n' buggy -- try slink! (Score:2)
Potato, contrary to popular belief, is updated, but updates consist of bugfixes (many security-related). You won't have the latest and greatest stuff out there, but if you want a stable box, it's the way to fly.
Slink offers a rapid development cycle and plenty of opportunities to experience the bugs and incompatibilities which plague other distros -- well, sort of (Slink is usually fixable). Packaging for Slink usually trails application release by a few days to a weeks for more obscure stuff. Plenty quick for me.
So have at it -- stable and conservative, or bleeding edge. Take your pick.
I'll let my mother take the answer to this one... (Score:2)
s/slink/potato; s/potato/slink/ (Score:2)
Re:IPO? (Score:2)
Naturally, it is an Internet/Free Software concept, and that's as up-market as they get right now.
Naturally, the issuing share price will be free, and underwriting will be by volunteers.
Many question... (Score:2)
Re:Debian and the FreeBSD kernel (Score:2)
Re:Dependencies and optimization (Score:2)
You can use this to tell dpkg that certain dependancies are fulfilled.
This is probably the cleanest way. Grab the package source, type dpkg-source -x file.dsc to extract it, cd to the directory it made, hack away on Makefiles or whatever, type fakeroot debian/rules binary (leave off fakeroot if you're actually root) and voila - fresh compiled packages.
You might wish to put them on hold ("=" in dselect or 'echo packagename hold | dpkg --set-selections') so that the packaging system knows not to upgrade them.
Re:Source-.debs (Score:2)
Also a list of source dependancies is kept by the build daemon machines - I forget where it's at though.
Re:Source-.debs (Score:2)
Daniel
Package pool? (Score:2)
There has been a lot of discussion on debian-devel lately (and for some time now) on the "package pool" system. How far have these discussions gone? I've already watched a few simply disappear with no concrete changes at all.
Congratulations on the great work!
rbp
Re:dpkg, The Hurd, and FreeBSD. (Score:2)
Well, Linux is much more of clone of the Unix kernel than the Hurd is, just the same, the Hurd, when complete, will provide a superset of the functionality of Linux (and, if Linus is right, run slower, but we'll see).
So, since you'll be able to run all your Linux applications on the Hurd (when/if it is completed), a Hurd box will look just like a Unix box (run X, Gnome etc). Where it will differ is that there will be applications that can run under the Hurd but not under Linux (or, at least, apps that would need root privs and kernel modules under Linux but could run in user space on the Hurd).
And Now For Something Completely Different... (Score:2)
Re:dpkg, apt interfaces (Score:2)
Daniel
Re:KDElibs inclusion in Debian. (Score:2)
Just be careful not to relicense code you didn't write.
I thought I heard a long time ago that KDE was planning to relicense all the code they own to the Artistic license, does anyone know what became of this?
Re:Debian and the FreeBSD kernel (Score:2)
Linux in the same way that BSDers think about BSD, namely that the
operating system is the whole distribution. However in practice that
is not how most people do think of it, partly I think due to the
workability of applying RPMs meant for one distribution to other
distributions, giving rise to `mulatto Linux'.
Its amazing that this works without much difficulty, and I think it
is one of the reasons why Linux is so innovation friendly: one doesn't
need to wait until the new Redhat version of package XYZ is out, one
can be truly bleeding edge and apply the SuSE RPM today. But it is
anathema to the `systems integrity' mindset of BSD, and I think there
is a case for that mindset with issues like security, etc.
Hurd vs Linux (Score:2)
If there are no differences above kernel level, then there is little point to bothering with Hurd. [hex.net] Might as well just improve Linux a bit.
The point is twofold:
Things may not be there yet, but that's certainly the intent.
The result of this is much as you suggest, that there don't have to be a lot of differences visible in user space. Applications that run on Linux should also be able to run on Hurd.
The notion of filesystem translators, for instance, is something that Linux doesn't do.
As time goes by, if there is any merit to Hurd, the use of Hurd facilities such as translators should result in systems based on Hurd diverging from the way Linux looks.
Conclusion: Both Linux and Hurd offer many things that are similar, such as:
- Multiple users
- Multiple tasks
- Hierarchical filesystems
- GLIBC
...
which will result in them looking pretty similar in a lot of ways.The similarities at present comes from trying to get the stuff that works on Linux to work on Hurd.
Eventually, if Hurd "goes well," the differences will emerge...
Re:Phrasing the question a little better ... (Score:2)
"The Unix space" was a reference to that subset of all operating system facilities that is traditionally accepted as describing Unix (and therefore also Linux). As the HURD website makes clear, it is a primary goal of the HURD to provide functionality that is outside of that subset, ie. to offer more powerful facilities and mechanisms than are available in the Unix model. By design then, the HURD would be expected to surpass Linux in a variety of areas, which is why a more positive form of the question seemed appropriate.
Re:What is Debian (Score:2)
Daniel
Re:Volunteering (Score:2)
The concept could easily be extended to better fulfil your request.