Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 03:12:52PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: That, of course, when we're not busy handling unhelpful ideas or complaints from people who do not really understand what's going on. How many times more this same discussion is going to happen? why do you assume I don't know how debian release process works? Well, for understanding how the release process works, you certainly seem to be expending quite a few words arguing the claim that people are gratuitously breaking things in unstable -- despite your own admission that you don't actually *know* what the issue with jackd is. Ok, so I guess you have a pretty solid grasp of Debian list *culture*, but that doesn't really imply you understand the release processes... :) and I guess it will be repeated until debian (i.e. debian developers) comes up with a solution. Perhpas the fact that this is being repeated over and over means that it should be addressed? No, it just explains why developers are irritated when the hundredth user in a row comes to complain about unstable being... unstable. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:18 -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: all in all, if you offer a distro that is several years old it's not suitable for _general_ desktop use (I'm sure it would be OK for _some_ dektop users), regardless of how much you dislike people running unstable. Then stick with testing. Just my few cents, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 19:17 -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: well, what is experimental for then? Experimental is for stuff you DON'T plan to be in next stable. Or for stuff which could break next release (which is not case right now). F.E.: GNOME 2.6-2.8 transition was done in experimental in first place, because it COULD break sarge release process. GNOME 2.10 was uploaded right to unstable, because it WON'T break etch release now. O. -- Ondrej Sury [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 22:56 -0400, David Nusinow wrote: So you're complaining that this jackd bug is exemplary of unneccessary breakages in unstable, and yet you don't even know if there is a good reason for this bug. You don't know if this is tied to the gcc change. I believe that #318098 can be simply avoided by not doing dist-upgrade (ie. not install new conflicting jackd). How simple and how much flames :-(. -- Ondrej Sury [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
* Erik Steffl [Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:01:16 -0700]: mini rant debian-devel is not your blog. Please do refrain from ranting here in the future, at least while being a guest. This thread has made me want to scream. Please educate yourself about the details of our development model before posting to a list devoted to discussion about technical development topics. What a sucky morning. -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. -- John Maynard Keynes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:56:21PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: David Nusinow wrote: Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is errr... where would YOU like to work? In intentionally broken unstable becuase it's just unstable? You surprise me. No. But this is a recurring theme that happens every time after we release a new stable. It currently goes like this: * Stable releases * Freeze is lifted * The new and shiny updates that people wanted to bring in for a few months now but that they held back because we were in freeze is uploaded all at once. * All kinds of funny and unpredictable things happen. X breaks. After the woody freeze, I remember PAM breaking because of a slight typo by the maintainer somewhere. The combination of the new libfoo and the half-upgraded libbar transition happens to work when black magic and the phase of the moon cooperate, but break libbaz and libquux on the off chance that they sometimes do not work correctly. Preferably in horrible ways. * After a few months, the worst transitions and fuckups are over resp. get fixed. People start talking of doing the next freeze again. * This next freeze takes a while (last time, we had a period of approximately one year in which at least _some_ packages were in a state of freeze). During this period, people start using unstable more often because 'it just works'. Only to be disappionted at things breaking when the freeze is over and when unstable is, well, unstable again. * Complaints like in this thread happen on -devel, because unstable just happened to work for a while, so people have forgotten what unstable is for. I wasn't there for the breakage after potato; but I was there with woody, and we see it again with Sarge now. Unstable is _a_development_system_. The purpose of a development system is to allow it to break without interfering with a users' system. The fact that our development system is out there for everyone to use doesn't matter -- if you'd get access to development versions of Windows or MacOS X (which you probably won't, unless you happen to work at Microsoft or Apple), and it would break down, you'd expect that; you'd file a bug rather than complain how bad Windows or MacOS X is. The same should be true for Debian. Yes, there is experimental, and yes, experimental can help alleviate the problems unstable has. But it cannot completely avoid them; experimental is for stuff that you expect to break, while unstable is for stuff that you don't expect to break. The key word here is 'expect'; having unstable only for stuff that will not break would be great, but is simply impossible -- you can only be sure whether it will or will not break by allowing people to try it. And let's be fair about this; unstable/testing has a *lot* more users than experimental. *for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to push the distro as a whole forward. No one says that you have to be running isn't that what experimental is for? No. Summarizing the above, experimental is there for people to break on purpose, while unstable is there for people to break by accident. Since a lot of changes are happening right now, a lot of accidents happen as well -- which results in an overall reduction in quality of the system. There's nothing we can do to fix that -- other than by expelling everyone who ever makes even the slightest mistake. But I don't like the sound of that... the s00p3r 133t newest version of everything on your system at all times. no but I want to. Because non-1337 stuff is usally several years old (not at the moment but it's getting old fast) and not suitable for desktop usage (in general) I hear that argument a lot, and it makes me wonder. If three-year-old software is not suitable for desktop usage in general, then what did you do three years ago? Use pen and paper? If you really want the s00p3 l33t newest version of everything, then you need to accept that it comes with a lot of bugs. That's where the term 'bleeding edge' comes from. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
I would _NEVER_ recommend someone install Debian Unstable as a
desktop... Testing, yes, Stable even more so.
In my experience, sid breaks less than testing when used as a desktop.
OTOH, I avoid doing apt{-get,itude} upgrade... I generally enter the
interactive aptitude screen, press U, and upgrade only what does not
break... (and I usually regret when I /do/ apt-get upgrade)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
Em Ter, 2005-08-09 às 19:17 -0700, Erik Steffl escreveu: That is wat unstable is for. well, what is experimental for then? And what would you offer to desktop users? Stop that. That's how our release process works; using unstable (maybe even testing, for that matter) for common-user desktops is broken. We need faster releases or a Debian Desktop CDD which provides a more desktop-friendly system, perhaps tracking testing and freezing differently from the usual stable. You're trying to fix the wrong problem, go fix real bugs. what are you talking about? Nobody was suggesting anything like that. I was merely saying that for lot of desktop users unstable is the only sort of acceptable option so people might want to take it seriously, like not breaking it for extended periods of time with the attitude it's just unstable. If developers needs to try something crazy then there's experimental, as far as I can tell. We're usually not doing crazy stuff on unstable, I assure you; we're just trying to develop our next release. That, of course, when we're not busy handling unhelpful ideas or complaints from people who do not really understand what's going on. How many times more this same discussion is going to happen? See ya, -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha http://people.debian.org/~kov Debian: http://www.debian.org * http://www.debian-br.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: Em Ter, 2005-08-09 às 19:17 -0700, Erik Steffl escreveu: That is wat unstable is for. well, what is experimental for then? And what would you offer to desktop users? Stop that. That's how our release process works; using unstable (maybe even testing, for that matter) for common-user desktops is broken. We need faster releases or a Debian Desktop CDD which provides a more desktop-friendly system, perhaps tracking testing and freezing differently from the usual stable. well, OK but _now_ the best option is unstable. All I was saying that IMO developers would help a lot by not using it's just unstable as an excuse to break it (or sort of break it, like jackd does). I was not asking for unstable to magically become release quality. You're trying to fix the wrong problem, go fix real bugs. ? I can't fix bugs like the one in subject of this email or udev requiring newer kernel than is available in debian etc. (which is the kind of bugs I was talking about, I wasn't complaining about unstable in general, it's actually amazingly stable) ... That, of course, when we're not busy handling unhelpful ideas or complaints from people who do not really understand what's going on. How many times more this same discussion is going to happen? why do you assume I don't know how debian release process works? Been reading debian-devel and debian-users for few years now... Note that I wasn't asking to change the development process, simply to acknowledge that unstable is very useful to users and treat it as such, unless you come up with something else that's recent enough (more frequent releases, actually usable testing or something else). and I guess it will be repeated until debian (i.e. debian developers) comes up with a solution. Perhpas the fact that this is being repeated over and over means that it should be addressed? (well, maybe ubuntu or other debian unstable based distro is the answer) erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:56:21PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: ... No. Summarizing the above, experimental is there for people to break on purpose, while unstable is there for people to break by accident. Since that's all I was saying! Don't break it intentionally and say it's only unstable, deal with it. a lot of changes are happening right now, a lot of accidents happen as well -- which results in an overall reduction in quality of the system. and note that I explicitly wrote that I am not complaining about c++ abi changes or X.org transition (well, seems like jackd is somehow related to c++ abi even though it's not c++ lib itself) There's nothing we can do to fix that -- other than by expelling everyone who ever makes even the slightest mistake. But I don't like the sound of that... me neither but asking about an eta for fix and an explanation what's going on seems reasonable... the s00p3r 133t newest version of everything on your system at all times. no but I want to. Because non-1337 stuff is usally several years old (not at the moment but it's getting old fast) and not suitable for desktop usage (in general) I hear that argument a lot, and it makes me wonder. If three-year-old software is not suitable for desktop usage in general, then what did you do three years ago? Use pen and paper? vi:-) ok, I don't remember the dates exactly but during last few years (I think withing last three): - I got ati 9800pro (not sure if anything in unstable is needed, I use ati driver, I think I needed X 4 and kernel 2.6.x but maybe not) - iPod (firewire, hfs+) - according to docs hfs+ support was very experimental until fairly recently, I think I needed unstable kernel for firewire too - SATA disk - at a time needed bleeding edge kernel with patches from jeff Garzik to make it work, new kernel (third party) also required new binutils (the ones in unstable) - usb support (mass storage: camera, nokia ngage) - don't think it worked very well in stable but not sure about that - firefox, thunderbird are a lot better than what was available three years ago (I think mozilla just started to be usable at that time), I also want java to work, javascript to work, latest plugins available, css to work etc. - openoffice (previously staroffice) - only became usable recently (well, maybe some found it usable before but opne way or another it improved a LOT), MS import improved a lot (don't import many MS files but I didn't have any problems during last maybe a year while before that the import wasn't that good), etc. - IM clients are broken fairly often (i.e. probably at least once during the period of three years) by protocol changes so you need the latest ones - kde and gnome are both fairly immature so having a new version is usually very useful - performance, functionality etc. (this includes lot of stuff that comes with these - nautilus, koffice, konqueror etc. most of which only became usable during last maybe one or two years) - alsa - only became stable recently - jackd - very useful for audio - rosegarden4 and several other major audio apps, essentially I couldn't even do anythign interesting with audio two or three years ago (between alsa not working very well, lack of preemptive kernel and lack of apps, not saying you couldn't do anything with audio but compared to what you can do now it's almost nothing:-) the list goes on and on. Actually it's pretty amazing how fast the opensource software development is and how many apps were created or improved over the last few years. erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: that's all I was saying! Don't break it intentionally and say it's only unstable, deal with it. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to deliberately break unstable. For example, I might choose to upgrade a new version of a shared library, knowing it has a bug, because that way other packages that are based on the library can link against the new API. Then they can get tested with the new API (even though there is the bug), and then when the bug gets fixed, the whole kit and kaboodle can go into testing at once. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
Em Qua, 2005-08-10 às 15:12 -0700, Erik Steffl escreveu: well, OK but _now_ the best option is unstable. All I was saying that IMO developers would help a lot by not using it's just unstable as an excuse to break it (or sort of break it, like jackd does). I was not asking for unstable to magically become release quality. Let me repeat it: we don't break unstable on purpose. why do you assume I don't know how debian release process works? Been reading debian-devel and debian-users for few years now... Note that I wasn't asking to change the development process, simply to acknowledge that unstable is very useful to users and treat it as such, unless you come up with something else that's recent enough (more frequent releases, actually usable testing or something else). Most of us use unstable. Do you really think it's on our best interest to break it? It's just how things are. More than useful for users, unstable is useful for what it is for: doing development. Don't try to change that; this is not the problem, this is not the solution. and I guess it will be repeated until debian (i.e. debian developers) comes up with a solution. Perhpas the fact that this is being repeated over and over means that it should be addressed? (well, maybe ubuntu or other debian unstable based distro is the answer) Maybe... we're trying to get our release process have a sane timing; now, rehashing this kinds of non-issues doesn't help. See ya, -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha http://people.debian.org/~kov Debian: http://www.debian.org * http://www.debian-br.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
status of jackd? (bug #318098)
yes it's unstable but still, what's the status of jackd? Currently it's pretty much uninstallable (i.e. lot of packages would have to be removed to install jackd). Considering that jackd is required (or at least very useful for) by almost all major audio apps this is fairly bad - any ideas when this is going to be fixed? relevant bug: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=318098 mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this? Same for udev (requiring linux kernel 2.6.12 which wasn't available for debian) etc. At least explanation and status update would help (the bug does have a vague ETA but no explanation). Unstable is pretty much the only debian version usable for desktop (in general, I guess somebody could use stable for desktop) because desktop software (X, browsers, kde and gnome etc.) and HW support develops/changes too fast for stable to be able to keep up. erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On 09/08/05, Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this? Same for udev (requiring linux kernel 2.6.12 which wasn't available for debian) etc. At least explanation and status update would help (the bug does have a vague ETA but no explanation). Unstable is pretty much the only debian version usable for desktop (in general, I guess somebody I would _NEVER_ recommend someone install Debian Unstable as a desktop... Testing, yes, Stable even more so. could use stable for desktop) because desktop software (X, browsers, kde and gnome etc.) and HW support develops/changes too fast for stable to be able to keep up. But the point of Stable, is that it is not effected by ABI Transitions except between major releases. Stable is as good for Desktops as it is for servers. If someone however dearly wants Stable with updated hardware, it is possible to pin apt stable sources, yet allow testing/unstable kernel/x/wm/* packages in. The comment of yours could also be put in way that: your HW support changes too fast will relate just as easy to networking, but if they invent 100gbit/s network cards for mainstream release in 2 hours time, the stable hardware support is out dated, (btw, purposely far-fetched). If the admin wishes to use that hardware, by all means he/she can go and apt-get that kernel that supports it, if he/she wishes... My main point is, what your saying applies to 99% of users, so in general are you saying Debian should just have a version called Unstable, ok it would mean quicker security updates, no freezes, madhouse updates, mass package breakage during transitions... but overall, that would be really great for a Desktop or a server right? Sorry if any of the details are incorrect, but I do not like the idea of Desktop computers running unstable, esp in the world of what seems to be, mostly, Windows users. Only exception, developers/maintainers that work in those areas and have to test constantly, and are prepared to... erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- N Jones Proud Debian FOSS User Debian Maintainer of: html2ps, ipkungfu, dvorak7min windowlab
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
Nigel Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 09/08/05, Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this? Same for udev (requiring linux kernel 2.6.12 which wasn't available for debian) etc. At least explanation and status update would help (the bug does have a vague ETA but no explanation). Unstable is pretty much the only debian version usable for desktop (in general, I guess somebody I would _NEVER_ recommend someone install Debian Unstable as a desktop... Testing, yes, Stable even more so. I'm running current unstable on multiple desktops, including the one on which I'm currently typing this message. Let's not go too overboard here with exaggeration. :) Sorry if any of the details are incorrect, but I do not like the idea of Desktop computers running unstable, esp in the world of what seems to be, mostly, Windows users. Only exception, developers/maintainers that work in those areas and have to test constantly, and are prepared to... I understand why people do keep saying things like this, and certainly I wouldn't give unstable to someone who really doesn't understand how Debian works and isn't capable of working around problems. That being said, for someone with basic competence in Unix, it works extremely well. I've been running unstable for quite a while now and have yet to have anything significant break. I'm sure that it will at some point, but the rate is, in my experience, no more frequent than once every six months, if that. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:01:16AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this? Same for udev (requiring linux kernel 2.6.12 which wasn't available for debian) etc. At least explanation and status update would help (the bug does have a vague ETA but no explanation). Unstable is pretty much the only debian version usable for desktop (in general, I guess somebody could use stable for desktop) because desktop software (X, browsers, kde and gnome etc.) and HW support develops/changes too fast for stable to be able to keep up. Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is *for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to push the distro as a whole forward. No one says that you have to be running the s00p3r 133t newest version of everything on your system at all times. Testing should be a good compromise for your needs anyway. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Aug 09 21:54+1200, Nigel Jones wrote: On 09/08/05, Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this? Same for udev (requiring linux kernel 2.6.12 which wasn't available for debian) etc. At least explanation and status update would help (the bug does have a vague ETA but no explanation). Unstable is pretty much the only debian version usable for desktop (in general, I guess somebody I would _NEVER_ recommend someone install Debian Unstable as a desktop... Testing, yes, Stable even more so. Testing seems to be the least secure option. Now that Sarge is out, stable is great... but Woody was _so_ out of date, and testing (by its very nature) lags on security issues... it seemes to me that up until recently unstable was the best choice for desktops. Usually, if something breaks in unstable, you can install it from testing until it is fixed. Maybe I'm missing something? -- Eldon Koyle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:28:58AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:01:16AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this? Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is *for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to push the distro as a whole forward. No, that's what experimental is for. If you upload something to unstable, it should be ready to migrate to testing in a short period. And it would be best that you could prove that it's ready to go to testing before you upload it to unstable. I really think that anything with has a alot of reverse dependencies (let's say 10 or something), should be uploaded to experimental before doing any kind of transition and should contact the release team that they plan to do so. I think this should be done for everything that has the potential to break something. This of course includes shared libraries that have to go thru an soname change, but really should include most things that have reverse dependencies. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:16PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:28:58AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is *for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to push the distro as a whole forward. No, that's what experimental is for. If you upload something to unstable, it should be ready to migrate to testing in a short period. And it would be best that you could prove that it's ready to go to testing before you upload it to unstable. This doesn't really work that way in reality, because you're just pushing things up yet another level. At some point non-developers will use experimental the way they use unstable now. Let's give a concrete example that I have some experience with: X.org. I uploaded it to unstable with the best of my own knowledge that it was ready to ship. It turned out not to be, breaking things due to port issues and a mistaken belief that it would have to deal with the C++ transition. I broke a hell of a lot of things with that upload that I didn't know I would break. I had unofficial packages that I advertised on planet debian well beforehand, and I got a lot of testing out of them (got a few important bug fixes in the first upload to unstable as a result) and I *still* broke a lot of things when I uploaded to unstable. And I *still* haven't been able to upload a completely fixed package that can migrate to testing (waiting on arm now...). It's been over a month that I've been working on that. The point is, things break and we need a place to break them. Whether you name it unstable or experimental makes no real difference. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On 8/9/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This doesn't really work that way in reality, because you're just pushing things up yet another level. At some point non-developers will use experimental the way they use unstable now. I think the only real solution to this is to allow multiple versions to be installed and to allow the user to then use an older version or to allow upgrades to be rollde back.
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
Nigel Jones wrote: On 09/08/05, Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this? Same for udev (requiring linux kernel 2.6.12 which wasn't available for debian) etc. At least explanation and status update would help (the bug does have a vague ETA but no explanation). Unstable is pretty much the only debian version usable for desktop (in general, I guess somebody I would _NEVER_ recommend someone install Debian Unstable as a desktop... Testing, yes, Stable even more so. could use stable for desktop) because desktop software (X, browsers, kde and gnome etc.) and HW support develops/changes too fast for stable to be able to keep up. But the point of Stable, is that it is not effected by ABI Transitions except between major releases. Stable is as good for Desktops as it is for servers. If someone however dearly wants Stable with updated hardware, it is possible to pin apt stable sources, yet allow testing/unstable kernel/x/wm/* packages in. The comment of yours could also be put in way that: your HW support changes too fast will relate just as easy to networking, but if they invent 100gbit/s network cards for mainstream release in 2 hours time, the stable hardware support is out dated, (btw, purposely far-fetched). If the admin wishes to use that hardware, by all means he/she can go and apt-get that kernel that supports it, if he/she wishes... My main point is, what your saying applies to 99% of users, so in general are you saying Debian should just have a version called Unstable, ok it would mean quicker security updates, no freezes, madhouse updates, mass package breakage during transitions... but overall, that would be really great for a Desktop or a server right? Sorry if any of the details are incorrect, but I do not like the idea of Desktop computers running unstable, esp in the world of what seems to be, mostly, Windows users. Only exception, developers/maintainers that work in those areas and have to test constantly, and are prepared to... servers versus desktops: - the software for servers is a lot more stable (year old apache is great, year old mozilla is useless), - on servers you don't need HW support for latest gizmos (year old disk, network card etc. are OK, year old video card is showing its age) - servers are usually supposed to be running all the time, mostly specific set of packages that you already tested, upgrades are costly (e.g. testing that all the home grown perl scripts work with new perl version etc.) all in all, if you offer a distro that is several years old it's not suitable for _general_ desktop use (I'm sure it would be OK for _some_ dektop users), regardless of how much you dislike people running unstable. Frankly I don't understand why so many debian developers live in denial... For desktop usage you need _new_ software - pretty much all the desktop sofrware is under heavy development and is going from proof of concept to something actually usable (mozilla, gnome, kde, open office, games, support for new HW etc.). and pinning is ridiculous, if I wanted to maintain my distro I'd go withslackware or some other hand-off distro and keep my add ons in /opt/package-version. Testing is evenmroe ridiculous, it breaks for longer periods of time and I'm nto sure about security fixes (it didn't use to get them in timely fasion, maybe that was fixed in the meantime). All in all debian should somehow solve the age issue - either release more often or put more effort in keeping unstabl working (and it's working very well, I've been using it for several years without major problems and even minor problems are fairly rare, I guess it's just a little bit of attitude change) Now that there's experimental isn't that a good playing ground? I was under impression that experimental is for stuff that potentially breaks something, and unstable is for release candidates... erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
[Eldon Koyle] Maybe I'm missing something? I suspect you are. Are you aware of URL:http://secure-testing.alioth.debian.org/? If you see through URL:http://dc5video.debian.net/2005-07-12/08-Securing_the_Testing_Distribution-Joey_Hess.mpeg, you will hear more about it. The status of testing might be better than woody and sarge. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
David Nusinow wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:01:16AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this? Same for udev (requiring linux kernel 2.6.12 which wasn't available for debian) etc. At least explanation and status update would help (the bug does have a vague ETA but no explanation). Unstable is pretty much the only debian version usable for desktop (in general, I guess somebody could use stable for desktop) because desktop software (X, browsers, kde and gnome etc.) and HW support develops/changes too fast for stable to be able to keep up. Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is errr... where would YOU like to work? In intentionally broken unstable becuase it's just unstable? You surprise me. *for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to push the distro as a whole forward. No one says that you have to be running isn't that what experimental is for? the s00p3r 133t newest version of everything on your system at all times. no but I want to. Because non-1337 stuff is usally several years old (not at the moment but it's getting old fast) and not suitable for desktop usage (in general) Testing should be a good compromise for your needs anyway. well, the fixes take forever to get to testing plus not sure about security (apparently there's some effort to fix this as was mentioned in another message in this thread: http://secure-testing.alioth.debian.org/) so while testing seems like a good idea in general it doesn't seem to be very appealing in its current incarnation... (I started to use testing but gave up) erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:16PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:28:58AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:01:16AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this? Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is *for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to push the distro as a whole forward. No, that's what experimental is for. If you upload something to unstable, it should be ready to migrate to testing in a short period. And it would be best that you could prove that it's ready to go to testing before you upload it to unstable. I really think that anything with has a alot of reverse dependencies (let's say 10 or something), should be uploaded to experimental before doing any kind of transition I disagree. and should contact the release team that they plan to do so. I can agree with that, though. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:56:21PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: errr... where would YOU like to work? In intentionally broken unstable becuase it's just unstable? You surprise me. We need to work somewhere. We don't intentionally break unstable for no good reason. *for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to push the distro as a whole forward. No one says that you have to be running isn't that what experimental is for? Yes, but that's also what unstable is for. You just don't get it. If we do all the work that breaks things in experimental, unstable won't have all the newest stuff in it. Because the newest stuff will still be broken. Then you'll have to use experimental, at which point we're right back to the same place. Stuff doesn't magically just work the minute we upload it to some archive, we have to do the actual work to fix things. the s00p3r 133t newest version of everything on your system at all times. no but I want to. Because non-1337 stuff is usally several years old (not at the moment but it's getting old fast) and not suitable for desktop usage (in general) A lot of people have this complaint and it's one I sympathise with. The problem is that no one has done the legwork to fix it, short of forking the project. I would love to see someone take this on within the framework of Debian. Maybe you should do it. Testing should be a good compromise for your needs anyway. well, the fixes take forever to get to testing plus not sure about security (apparently there's some effort to fix this as was mentioned in another message in this thread: http://secure-testing.alioth.debian.org/) so while testing seems like a good idea in general it doesn't seem to be very appealing in its current incarnation... (I started to use testing but gave up) Yet another part of the project that needs hard work to fix. Want to help? - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
David Nusinow wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:16PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:28:58AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is *for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to push the distro as a whole forward. No, that's what experimental is for. If you upload something to unstable, it should be ready to migrate to testing in a short period. And it would be best that you could prove that it's ready to go to testing before you upload it to unstable. This doesn't really work that way in reality, because you're just pushing things up yet another level. At some point non-developers will use experimental the way they use unstable now. Let's give a concrete example that I have some experience with: X.org. I uploaded it to unstable with the best of my own knowledge that it was ready to ship. It turned out not to be, breaking things due to port issues and a mistaken belief that it would have to deal with the C++ transition. I broke a hell of a lot of things with that upload that I didn't know I would break. I had unofficial packages that I advertised on planet debian well beforehand, and I got a lot of testing out of them (got a few important bug fixes in the first upload to unstable as a result) and I *still* broke a lot of things when I uploaded to unstable. And I *still* haven't been able to upload a completely fixed package that can migrate to testing (waiting on arm now...). It's been over a month that I've been working on that. The point is, things break and we need a place to break them. Whether you name it unstable or experimental makes no real difference. well, sometime bugs get all the way to stable, no software is without bugs. What I was talking about is that 'unstable' is pretty much only usable desktop so it shouldn't be broken on purpose. Or the release cycle should be 1 year. Or something. Maybe the solution for (desktop) users is to use some actively maintained sort of unstable meant for end users - e.g. ubuntu. BTW I think it makes a lot of sense to use experimental for most of the initial testing and only release to unstable when it looks like the package is a release candidate. Yes, some problems might only be uncovered in unstable but that's what the unstable is for:-) Summary of my point: given the imporance of unstable the attitude who cares, it's only unstable doesn't seem to make sense (see the jackd problem (bug #318098), jackd which is crucial for audio processing is uninstallable for several weeks and it's not even explained what's going on). erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 04:23:55PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: well, sometime bugs get all the way to stable, no software is without bugs. What I was talking about is that 'unstable' is pretty much only usable desktop Clearly not, or you wouldn't find it necessary to complain about the fact that you currently find it unusable. Unstable is, first and foremost, the staging ground for the next stable release. If users find it usable for their purposes, more power to them. If not, fixing unstable for them should not take precedence over the actual development processes; those users should be using something else instead, or learning how to coexist with development shake-ups while running unstable. I won't try to suggest here what that other something should be, because I cannot fathom what sort of a desktop user *needs* cutting-edge software. The constantly shifting sand dunes of unstable are precisely what I *wouldn't* look for in a desktop environment that I actually plan to use for productivity. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
Op di, 09-08-2005 te 16:23 -0700, schreef Erik Steffl: BTW I think it makes a lot of sense to use experimental for most of the initial testing That is wat unstable is for. and only release to unstable when it looks like the package is a release candidate. That is testing, it should be possible to release testing anytime as the next stable. You're complaining that testing is too old, and unstable unstable, but it takes some time to fix bugs and make sure a package is in a releasable state, so yeah the software in testing might be a little bit old, but that can't be helped. Moving development from unstable to testing won't fix this, then unstable gets 'old' and we are back were we started. Greetings Arjan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 06:56 pm, Erik Steffl wrote: well, the fixes take forever to get to testing That is because they need to go through testing and bug fixes in unstable. so while testing seems like a good idea in general it doesn't seem to be very appealing in its current incarnation... (I started to use testing but gave up) What you are asking for is to have experimental be what unstable is now, and unstable be what testing is now. If the gcc transition were going on in experimental right now, rather than unstable, unstable would go without updates to gcc, X, etc. etc. for months, just as testing is right now. I think if you got what you are asking for, you would switch to using experimental. Like you, I enjoy using and testing the latest versions of everything, so I also run unstable on my desktop. But to do that, you need to be willing to suffer the occasional breakage and pay close attention to everything that is going on with Debian. Josh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 04:23:55PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: well, sometime bugs get all the way to stable, no software is without bugs. What I was talking about is that 'unstable' is pretty much only usable desktop Clearly not, or you wouldn't find it necessary to complain about the fact that you currently find it unusable. come on, don't pretend you don't understand (also, I didn't say I find it unusable, I am mostly trying to figure out what's going on with jackd). clarification: unstable is _closest_ to usable desktop out of what debian offers. and it would be really nice if developers wouldn't break it unneccessarily, like jackd seems to be doing right now. I am not complaining about occasional problems (like e.g. x.org upgrade) or really huge efforts like c++ abi change (I think jackd problem is not part of that but I might be mistaken). Unstable is, first and foremost, the staging ground for the next stable release. If users find it usable for their purposes, more power to them. If not, fixing unstable for them should not take precedence over the actual development processes; those users should be using something else instead, or learning how to coexist with development shake-ups while running unstable. well, if it's staging ground for the next stable release care should be taken for it to be stable enough to be usable, right? I mean if you cannot install jack then how are you going to develop software that needs jack? Obviously _some_ problems are pretty much impossible to avoid (e..g c++ abi change) but I was talking about the attitude towards _unneccessary_ problems, which is what jackd seems like. I won't try to suggest here what that other something should be, because I cannot fathom what sort of a desktop user *needs* cutting-edge software. The constantly shifting sand dunes of unstable are precisely what I *wouldn't* look for in a desktop environment that I actually plan to use for productivity. err firefox? thunderbird? open office? hotplug? new kernels with new drivers? new kde or gnome? all of these are under constant development and stable usually has versions that are very outdated (or are not there at all). there's a LOT of functionality for desktops that gets developed in two or three years it usually takes to release new debian stable. Do you really need examples of HUGE improvements of desktop related software in last two years? Or HW support? Yes, right at _this_ moment stable is pretty new but in few years it will be obsolete in many aspects again. So please don't argue that unstable is fresh _now_. erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
Arjan Oosting wrote: Op di, 09-08-2005 te 16:23 -0700, schreef Erik Steffl: BTW I think it makes a lot of sense to use experimental for most of the initial testing That is wat unstable is for. well, what is experimental for then? And what would you offer to desktop users? and only release to unstable when it looks like the package is a release candidate. That is testing, it should be possible to release testing anytime as the next stable. You're complaining that testing is too old, and unstable unstable, but no, here's what I was saying: unstable: mostly OK, think it would be useful if people took it a bit more seriously, i.e. not breaking it for extended periods of time without a good reason and if they break it at least explain what's going on (see jackd bug #318098) testing: bugs take forever to get fixed so overall it's worse than stable. Security was a huge problem, might be getting better (saw the link about the effort but don't know what the status is) stable: too old, most of the time, not suitable for desktop (in general) it takes some time to fix bugs and make sure a package is in a releasable state, so yeah the software in testing might be a little bit old, but that can't be helped. Moving development from unstable to testing won't fix this, then unstable gets 'old' and we are back were we started. what are you talking about? Nobody was suggesting anything like that. I was merely saying that for lot of desktop users unstable is the only sort of acceptable option so people might want to take it seriously, like not breaking it for extended periods of time with the attitude it's just unstable. If developers needs to try something crazy then there's experimental, as far as I can tell. erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
Josh Metzler wrote: On Tuesday 09 August 2005 06:56 pm, Erik Steffl wrote: well, the fixes take forever to get to testing That is because they need to go through testing and bug fixes in unstable. well, what does it matter? The bugs take forevr to fix so testing is not really usable... so while testing seems like a good idea in general it doesn't seem to be very appealing in its current incarnation... (I started to use testing but gave up) What you are asking for is to have experimental be what unstable is now, and unstable be what testing is now. If the gcc transition were going on in no I don't. experimental right now, rather than unstable, unstable would go without updates to gcc, X, etc. etc. for months, just as testing is right now. which is not what I was pointining out in my mini-rant and I already explicitly stated that I don't see how to avoid problems during big upgrades like that. As long as it's announced and visible it's OK (after all that IS what unstable is for). I think if you got what you are asking for, you would switch to using experimental. Like you, I enjoy using and testing the latest versions of everything, so I also run unstable on my desktop. But to do that, you need to be willing to suffer the occasional breakage and pay close attention to everything that is going on with Debian. repeat: note that I am not complaining about c++ abi changes etc., that can't be avoided, I think. I was specifically talking about _unneccessary_ problems that get weeks to fix for unknown reasons like jackd bug #318098 (perhaps there is a good reason for it, don't know). what I was suggesting is doing experiments in experimental, put release candidates into unstable, which is what seems to be current policy anyway. I also wish the it's unstable, deal with it was banned because it's used as a blank excuse for number of otherwise inexcusable problems that can be easily avoided. That's why I'm trying to persuade people that unstable is the only viable alternative for number of desktop users (well,so far I have only proven that that number is at least one:-) erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 07:17:50PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: well, what is experimental for then? And what would you offer to desktop users? Packages that you *know* aren't ready to be shipped. For example, I plan to put Xorg pre-release packages in experimental for people. These will contain a source tree that isn't yet released by upstream, so I know it's not ready for Debian, but it will also provide drivers to those who really need them and are willing to deal with breakages to get them. Nonetheless, I wouldn't put these sorts of packages in to unstable until they're at least blessed by upstream. Asking for a canonical definition of experimental isn't going to get you anywhere though, since different developers will use it differently. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 07:08:55PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 04:23:55PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: well, sometime bugs get all the way to stable, no software is without bugs. What I was talking about is that 'unstable' is pretty much only usable desktop Clearly not, or you wouldn't find it necessary to complain about the fact that you currently find it unusable. come on, don't pretend you don't understand (also, I didn't say I find it unusable, I am mostly trying to figure out what's going on with jackd). clarification: unstable is _closest_ to usable desktop out of what debian offers. and it would be really nice if developers wouldn't break it unneccessarily, like jackd seems to be doing right now. I am not complaining about occasional problems (like e.g. x.org upgrade) or really huge efforts like c++ abi change (I think jackd problem is not part of that but I might be mistaken). You are mistaken. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 07:28:07PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: repeat: note that I am not complaining about c++ abi changes etc., that can't be avoided, I think. I was specifically talking about _unneccessary_ problems that get weeks to fix for unknown reasons like jackd bug #318098 (perhaps there is a good reason for it, don't know). So you're complaining that this jackd bug is exemplary of unneccessary breakages in unstable, and yet you don't even know if there is a good reason for this bug. You don't know if this is tied to the gcc change. Do you have any other examples of these unnecessary changes that you assert are happening but shouldn't? This time with rationale to explain why they're so unneccessary beyond unstable is the only thing useful for desktops please. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
For the record, bug #318098 is related to the gcc transition - the packages that will get removed if jackd is installed are most of kde. A new kde could not be uploaded to change the dependency to the new libjack0.100.0-0 because of the chain of dependencies that had to make the gcc transition before kde can. That said, as libjack is not a c++ library, it seems possible that this problem might have been avoided if the libjack transition had waited until after the gcc transition. Josh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
