Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
Jason Killen wrote:
>
> I have gotten the real audio player for linux and tried to set up netscape
> to use the player but when I click on a real audio file netscape gives me
> this error message
>
> sh: -c: line 1: missing closing ')' for arithmetic expression
> sh: -c: line 1: syntax error near unexpected token ';'
> sh: -c: line 1: '((/usr/local/bin/realaudio/raplayer /tmp/file.ram); rm
> /tmp/file.ram )&'
>
> (Yes I changed the file names)
>
> I don't use sh/bash much so I don't really understand the error.
>
> Can anyone toss me some pointers or ideas??
>
This really annoys me. (No, not you Jason.) I agree that we have to
move on the the next distribution, but given the fact that
*most* debian 1.3.1 users use netscape
and that *most* of those folks will want
to use a plug-in, I think this bug merits an upgrade to 2.01 bash
for 1.3.1? If a really .deb upgrade is not the answer, can we create
a special upgrade on ftp.debian.org where I can upload a 2.01 bash
that I've built for 1.3.1?
In fact while I'm at it let me expand on this general point. Let me
say first that I marvel at the (apparent?) organization inherent in
the debian development "system". Even though there are many maintainers
everyone seems to be on the same page. However, I disagree with the
philosophy of fixing bugs in "old" distributions. Who decides when a
bug is important enough to be rolled back into an old distribution.
I use debian at home and at work. For home use, I like to be on the
cutting edge. At work, my job is developing software for
clients, not being a systems administrator. I want a distribution
which is easy to maintain and as well thought out as debian. Currently,
soon after a distribution has been released (this happened for 1.2
as well as 1.3) it is abandoned by the developers. There are *still*
bugs in the 1.3 installation (such as the problems with X). And why
the hell was X 3.3 tossed in at the last minute? The 3.2 dist. didn't
even install right. What's the focus here? Is debian trying to be a
solid system or a cutting edge system. Paragraph 4 of the Debain
Social Contract ("Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software")
states (whole P not quoted),
"To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of
high-quality, 100% free software, with no legal restrictions that
would prevent these kinds of use.
I find that while the quality of distributions is generally "high"
the emphasis from the developers is more on "let's get that hot new
release going" rather than "let's get all the bugs out of this latest
distribution and make it completely solid".
If this isn't what debian's about then I'm sorry for making all this
trouble. I'll shut up and go get Caldera. It's just a shame that the
distribution which I think has the most going for it technically and
produces a distribution so easy to maintain can't achieve this level
of quality.
Alright, that's just about enough out of me.
--
Jens B. Jorgensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
Dear Jens and other Debianers: > ... >"To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of > high-quality, 100% free software, with no legal restrictions that > would prevent these kinds of use. > > I find that while the quality of distributions is generally "high" > the emphasis from the developers is more on "let's get that hot new > release going" rather than "let's get all the bugs out of this latest > distribution and make it completely solid". I'm currently using "old" S.u.S.E. Linux at home and going to update it to ELF based new version of Linux. I would like to know the main advantages of Debian Linux over other distributions such as Red Hat, etc. Any idea? -Lingran ** Lingran Chen, Ph.D. Senior Scientific Programmer MDL Information Systems, Inc. 14600 Catalina Street San Leandro CA 94577 Phone: (510) 895-1313, Ext. 1305 FAX: (510) 614-3616 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.mdli.com http://syngen2.chem.brandeis.edu/~chen/lingran.html ** -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
"Jens B. Jorgensen" wrote: > Who decides when a > bug is important enough to be rolled back into an old distribution[?] After a few months of using Debian, I don't know the answer to that. I don't even know *if* distributions are updated after release. Is 1.3.1 supposed to be a stable upgrade to 1.3 in the same way that the Linux kernel 2.0.30 is a stable upgrade to 2.0.29? If so, will 1.3.2 be released to fix bugs in 1.3.1 while developpers are working on Debian 2.0? The FAQ (9.2 How can I keep my Debian system current?) talks about tracking the Debian archive, so I assume that having Debian 1.3 doesn't really mean anything unless I also say it's 1.3 dated from . Perhaps the upgrade scheme and version number scheme should be explained in www.debian.org somewhere, or perhaps I have missed something critical about Debian that I should know but don't. -- Peter Galbraith, research scientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Maurice-Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada 418-775-0852 - FAX 418-775-0546 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
"Jens B. Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This really annoys me. (No, not you Jason.) I agree that we have to > move on the the next distribution, but given the fact that > *most* debian 1.3.1 users use netscape > and that *most* of those folks will > want to use a plug-in, I think this bug merits an upgrade to 2.01 > bash for 1.3.1? I don't... Here's my slant on Bash 2.01 (since we seem to be into rants) * 2.01 is a lot of new and untested code Already, afaik, at least two bugs have been found, one is the segfault on declare -p and the other a really nasty bug in libreadline which causes a segfault on tab completion in a number of the programs which use libreadline. The Debian policy of "no new code, expect for urgent security fixes" in stable, is IMHO, a good one. If it weren't for that, these bugs might have been discovered in the "stable" Debian 1.3.x tree. * 2.01-0.1 is a *non-maintainer* release About when 2.01 was released the real maintainer, Guy Maor, was off on a month along (announced) holiday. I did 2.01 because it fixed the set -a; set +a man bug and because I urgently wanted a libc6 libreadline. (I don't use netscape and barely knew about the ``bug'', never mind cared about it). I am not the real maintainer for a very good reason (apart from that there already is a maintainer), I wasn't able to port all the changes Guy had done to bash 2.0's libreadline to bash 2.01's libreadline or adapt one of his security fixes for bash itself. What I did do in the end worked, and would do for a while *in unstable*, until Guy got back and could fix my kludged solution. Guy is of course back, but he's been even more busy than usual with the move of master, so he hasn't done a proper release yet. The two reasons above are two good reasons why there is no bash 2.01 in stable. Even if the second one is fixed by Guy doing a proper release, I'm still of the opinion that there is too much new and untested code in bash 2.01 for it to go into stable (the two bugs found so far being excellent arguments for that position). You just cannot put untested code into a stable tree and have it cause gdb, es, etc. to segfault on . That is _not_ stable. -- James -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
(time to do some apologizing)
> This really annoys me. (No, not you Jason.) I agree that we have to
> move on the the next distribution, but given the fact that
> *most* debian 1.3.1 users use netscape
> and that *most* of those folks will want
> to use a plug-in, I think this bug merits an upgrade to 2.01 bash
> for 1.3.1? If a really .deb upgrade is not the answer, can we create
> a special upgrade on ftp.debian.org where I can upload a 2.01 bash
> that I've built for 1.3.1?
Does bash 2.01 solve the problem? We do update 'stable' - we're
currently debating that strategy on the debian-private (developers only)
mailing list right now. If bash 2.0 is sufficiently broken, then that might
merit putting 2.01 into 'stable'.
> In fact while I'm at it let me expand on this general point. Let me
> say first that I marvel at the (apparent?) organization inherent in
> the debian development "system". Even though there are many maintainers
> everyone seems to be on the same page. However, I disagree with the
> philosophy of fixing bugs in "old" distributions. Who decides when a
> bug is important enough to be rolled back into an old distribution.
Basically the maintainer of the package does (so take up the issue
with him). I'm basically opposed to upgrading the 'stable' distribution
after it's been released -- except for packages that have security
flaws or were released in a 'broken' state (we shouldn't be doing that).
If someone really needs the bash 2.01 version - they can always install
it out of 'unstable' (along with libc6). No problem.
> I use debian at home and at work. For home use, I like to be on the
> cutting edge. At work, my job is developing software for
> clients, not being a systems administrator. I want a distribution
> which is easy to maintain and as well thought out as debian. Currently,
> soon after a distribution has been released (this happened for 1.2
> as well as 1.3) it is abandoned by the developers. There are *still*
> bugs in the 1.3 installation (such as the problems with X). And why
> the hell was X 3.3 tossed in at the last minute? The 3.2 dist. didn't
> even install right.
Well, a whole bunch of security bugs popped up at the last minute.
XFree is one of the biggest packages, so the X maintainer was swamped.
It was a lot less work to package up the just-released 3.3 version.
Unfortunately, all of this happened just as Debian 1.3 was being
released. There was no opportunity to thoroughly test it in unstable.
The other major problem is that we are allowing broken packages into
'stable'. There was also a problem where nobody realized that some of
the X install bugs should have been 'critical'. I'm going to propose
a new system for releasing things into stable that will solve these
problems for the next major release.
> What's the focus here? Is debian trying to be a
> solid system or a cutting edge system.
Both. But the 'stable' release should focus on being solid - and the
'unstable' working version should focus on being cutting edge. That
way, somebody that is sticking with 'stable' will be assured of having
a solid system that is only 6 months behind the 'bleeding edge'.
Think of most of the Debian developers as people who are willing to
live with the 'bleeding edge' and try to work out the bugs. The 'unstable'
distribution can be quite unstable at times (I lost the data on my
hard drive to one bug).
Stability and being on the 'cutting edge' are mutually exclusive -- until
a lot of work is done to fix bugs. We have 200 developers to do the work,
which might sound like a lot, but it isn't. Nobody's doing this
full-time as far as I know (although it may seem like it).
> Paragraph 4 of the Debain
> Social Contract ("Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software")
> states (whole P not quoted),
>
>"To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of
> high-quality, 100% free software, with no legal restrictions that
> would prevent these kinds of use.
>
> I find that while the quality of distributions is generally "high"
> the emphasis from the developers is more on "let's get that hot new
> release going" rather than "let's get all the bugs out of this latest
> distribution and make it completely solid".
That rings true. Basically 'stable' is a snapshot of 'unstable' at a
point in time where the developers have all taken a hiatus from adding
new features, and concentrated on fixing bugs. Overworked (or absent)
developers might not be able to participate fully in the release
effort, and we only have cursory checks (Dale Sheetz and Brian White
+ their helpers), so bugs slip through.
I don't think we have any developers actively working to improve
'unstable'. That's a good thing - who'd do the testing?
I'll admit that our testing/releasing procedures could (and will) be
improved. Debian 1.3 is really only the 3rd major release we've done
(my 2nd). We're still learning. Being the distributed bunch of
volunte
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
From: "Jens B. Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I agree that we have to > move on the the next distribution, but given the fact that > *most* debian 1.3.1 users use netscape > and that *most* of those folks will want > to use a plug-in, I think this bug merits an upgrade to 2.01 bash > for 1.3.1? If a really .deb upgrade is not the answer, can we create > a special upgrade on ftp.debian.org where I can upload a 2.01 bash > that I've built for 1.3.1? If you can determine that an upgrade in bash fixes the problem, we will get it in. Can you build bash and report back to us? > In fact while I'm at it let me expand on this general point. Let me > say first that I marvel at the (apparent?) organization inherent in > the debian development "system". Even though there are many maintainers > everyone seems to be on the same page. I'm as amazed as you are. We do talk about what we are doing a lot. I think the only reason it really works is that we have some _extremely_ high quality people, who were attracted by Debian's policies. > Who decides when a bug is important enough to be rolled back into an > old distribution. You have to tell us what you want first. Then our V.P. engineering makes a list of priorities, and various people help him with that. By the way, we are changing the point release naming scheme for marketing reasons. The next update will probably be called "Debian 1.3.1 revision 1". Once Debian 2.0 comes out we will go to one decimal point and a revision number, so it would look like "Debian 2.0 revision 1". This only makes sense to a marketing person, but please bear with it. Thanks Bruce -- Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it? Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
[ most deleted for bravity ] In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: |I find that while the quality of distributions is generally "high" |the emphasis from the developers is more on "let's get that hot new |release going" rather than "let's get all the bugs out of this latest |distribution and make it completely solid". I agree with everything Jens says. I expected 1.3 to be maintained and have bugs worked out of it, for the same reasons Jens gives - I need my Linux platforms to be as stable and bug-free as possible since my income, at both main work places, depends on it. Cheers, --Amos --Amos Shapira| "Of course Australia was marked for 133 Shlomo Ben-Yosef st. | glory, for its people had been chosen Jerusalem 93 805 | by the finest judges in England." ISRAEL[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Anonymous -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
From: Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Does bash 2.01 solve the problem? We do update 'stable' - we're > currently debating that strategy on the debian-private (developers only) > mailing list right now. If bash 2.0 is sufficiently broken, then that might > merit putting 2.01 into 'stable'. I'm going to have to set this straight, since Jim alluded to a discussion on our private list. The next version of the system will be called "Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1". People who make long-term products based on Debian requested that we not change the version number of the system if we were only making a few bug fixes. For example, X windows was rebuilt because Richard Stallman requested that XDM display "Debian GNU/Linux" rather than just "Debian Linux". It's worthwhile to insert that change, but not worthwhile to make everyone think they need to upgrade their systems because of it. Thus, we will not bump the release number to 1.3.2 for minor changes. This has been a large problem for some kinds of retailers, such as bookstores - they will not carry Debian unless we can promise them that we will give them a life-cycle longer than one month on their product. You will notice that both Red Hat and Slackware do not change their version numbers for bug fixes _at_all_. We will be changing the revision number, but not the release number. Thanks Bruce -- Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it? Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
I think numbering things this way is a great idea. I would like to see Debian succeed(?) on and off, in the "real world", the net. The one thing that I have always liked about Debian is the ability to be easy but not so easy that I have to be an ape to setup it up. I hope that with this move to the market place debian does not loose it's hack ability. As for Mr. Stallman and his problems with the exact name of Debian well I'll just say that if he wants an os of his own why dosen't he make one, yea I know about the HURD and such but hey when is the last time you picked up a copy of HURD Journal. Well enough bitting of the hand that feeds. >The next version of the system will be called "Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1". >People who make long-term products based on Debian requested that >we not change the version number of the system if we were only making a >few bug fixes. For example, X windows was rebuilt because Richard >Stallman requested that XDM display "Debian GNU/Linux" rather than just >"Debian Linux". It's worthwhile to insert that change, but not >worthwhile to make everyone think they need to upgrade their systems >because of it. Thus, we will not bump the release number to 1.3.2 for minor >changes. > >This has been a large problem for some kinds of retailers, such >as bookstores - they will not carry Debian unless we can promise them that >we will give them a life-cycle longer than one month on their product. > >You will notice that both Red Hat and Slackware do not change their version >numbers for bug fixes _at_all_. We will be changing the revision number, but >not the release number. > > Thanks > > Bruce >-- >Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it? >Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html >Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 -- Jason Killen Question Stupidity Want to stop the IRA??? Free the north. Monolith : the new ANSI standard for humans PGP fingerprint = 64 71 48 14 31 AE C6 70 E4 4F 64 EB 3B AA 00 6B [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cs.wcu.edu/~jkillen -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > From: Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Does bash 2.01 solve the problem? We do update 'stable' - we're > > currently debating that strategy on the debian-private (developers only) > > mailing list right now. If bash 2.0 is sufficiently broken, then that > > might > > merit putting 2.01 into 'stable'. > > I'm going to have to set this straight, since Jim alluded to a discussion > on our private list. > > The next version of the system will be called "Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1". > People who make long-term products based on Debian requested that > we not change the version number of the system if we were only making a > few bug fixes. For example, X windows was rebuilt because Richard > Stallman requested that XDM display "Debian GNU/Linux" rather than just > "Debian Linux". It's worthwhile to insert that change, but not > worthwhile to make everyone think they need to upgrade their systems > because of it. Thus, we will not bump the release number to 1.3.2 for minor > changes. > > This has been a large problem for some kinds of retailers, such > as bookstores - they will not carry Debian unless we can promise them that > we will give them a life-cycle longer than one month on their product. > > You will notice that both Red Hat and Slackware do not change their version > numbers for bug fixes _at_all_. We will be changing the revision number, but > not the release number. I'm unable to subscribe to debian-devel, or debian-private because neither is available in digest form. I've missed this discussion there, so forgive em if these have been answered, but i have some concerns about this. Is Debian not including fixes into the "official" CD image because of COMMERCIAL concerns??? Are the bug/security fixes there, but the name just not changed? Which is it? How does this naming convention have any impact on the contents of a CD if the changes are still there but the name not changed? It sounds strange to me that having a name last more than one month would have any impact on the contents if they're still being fixed/updated, etc. Also, on Richard Stallman, Is the FSF going to start selling Debian GNU/Linux CDs? Way back when, that was on there web site (I think), but then the whole mess happened, is now fixed, and looks like we're talking again. Any news of that? They used to say they might sell Gnu/Linux to fund other research, etc. Debian may do well to concede the "official" CD to them if they're interested. That would get us out of the CD business all together, and back in the Free Software business. Having someone else produce an officially endorced CD (as an OEM, for example) might clear up these kinds of mis-perceptions. A distribution based on putting quality first can't afford commercial conflicts of interest, lest our differentiating feature become bogus. I remember backing the decision to produce an official CD image at the time because of the need to improve our commercial viability, but we should checkpoint the effectiveness of that decision now and make sure our priorities haven't changed unintentionally. This is not an invitation to a flame war, nor is it a judgement. I just want to know what's happenning (as a debian user.) If Bruce says not to worry, I won't worry. But I'd like to know one way or another. Private mail is OK if this topic is being dubbed "unfit for public discussion". I'm still a "debian developer" in that I still maintain a debian package. I am only subscribed to this list and admintool (low traffic, but still no digest :-( ) Cheers, -- "Until we extend the circle of our compassion to all living things, we will not ourselves find peace" -Albert Schweitzer Richard G. Roberto -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
From: "Richard G. Roberto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Is Debian not including fixes into the "official" CD image > because of COMMERCIAL concerns??? Are the bug/security > fixes there, but the name just not changed? Which is it? The Official CD will have a slower release schedule than the system available via FTP. Those who wish the latest fixes should be willing to update a few packages on their systems via FTP between each CD purchase. Nobody can press new CDs every two weeks and continue to sell them for $4 per 2-CD set, while updating 5 packages in two weeks via FTP is fine for most people. I guess that is a commercial consideration :-) As far as I can tell, this is the best solution for the users. Cheap CDs with up to 1.3 GB data, and then you download the latest couple of megabytes of updates. > Also, on Richard Stallman, Is the FSF going to start selling > Debian GNU/Linux CDs? I don't think there is a need for them to do so any longer. They are selling an FSF CD, I don't know what is on it. They want to sell for a higher price than most vendors sell the Debian Official 2-CD Set. Thanks Bruce -- Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it? Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > The Official CD will have a slower release schedule than the system > available via FTP. Those who wish the latest fixes should be willing to > update a few packages on their systems via FTP between each CD > purchase. Nobody can press new CDs every two weeks and continue to sell > them for $4 per 2-CD set, while updating 5 packages in two weeks via FTP > is fine for most people. I guess that is a commercial consideration :-) There should be a changes file for the current version back to the last distributed version of any package -- for comparison -- available on the web site. That would help users determine what they want/need to update (if anything at all). Most of the time, bug fixes are for certain behaviors under certain conditions and don't even apply to everyone. I don't want to download a bug fix that doesn't even affect me ;) > > As far as I can tell, this is the best solution for the users. Cheap > CDs with up to 1.3 GB data, and then you download the latest couple > of megabytes of updates. Agreed -- without having to subscribe to an "internet bonanza" just to get debian ;) > > > Also, on Richard Stallman, Is the FSF going to start selling > > Debian GNU/Linux CDs? > > I don't think there is a need for them to do so any longer. They are > selling an FSF CD, I don't know what is on it. They want to sell for a > higher price than most vendors sell the Debian Official 2-CD Set. Having it available from the FSF would look good to comercial sites that already buy GNU software. It wouldn't need to be "competitive" at all. Just a thought. Thanks for the clarification. Sounds above board to me. Cheers, -- "Until we extend the circle of our compassion to all living things, we will not ourselves find peace" -Albert Schweitzer Richard G. Roberto -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
From: "Richard G. Roberto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sounds above board to me. That's some careless wording. One would think you'd know I'm one of the good guys by now. :-) Bruce -- Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it? Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > From: "Richard G. Roberto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sounds above board to me. > > That's some careless wording. One would think you'd know I'm one of the > good guys by now. :-) > > Bruce I should know better than to use colloqialisms(sp?) in international e-mail -- but I thought you were a nor-easter originally? To clarify, above board means "not behind closed doors". What I meant was that nothing hapened on debian-private that wasn't discussed in public during the original CD image thread. If it had, it woudn't have been above board, but rather "back room" or "closed door" ;) Even then, it wouldn't automatically make it "bad", just not "above board". I already stated in the original message that this was just an inquiry -- not a judgement. I think most of the debian team are good guys. I reserve the right to be a bad guy, however :-) Cheers, -- "Until we extend the circle of our compassion to all living things, we will not ourselves find peace" -Albert Schweitzer Richard G. Roberto -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> (time to do some apologizing)
>
> > This really annoys me. (No, not you Jason.) I agree that we have to
> > move on the the next distribution, but given the fact that
> > *most* debian 1.3.1 users use netscape
> > and that *most* of those folks will want
> > to use a plug-in, I think this bug merits an upgrade to 2.01 bash
> > for 1.3.1? If a really .deb upgrade is not the answer, can we create
> > a special upgrade on ftp.debian.org where I can upload a 2.01 bash
> > that I've built for 1.3.1?
>
> Does bash 2.01 solve the problem? We do update 'stable' - we're
> currently debating that strategy on the debian-private (developers only)
> mailing list right now. If bash 2.0 is sufficiently broken, then that might
> merit putting 2.01 into 'stable'.
>
> > In fact while I'm at it let me expand on this general point. Let me
> > say first that I marvel at the (apparent?) organization inherent in
> > the debian development "system". Even though there are many maintainers
> > everyone seems to be on the same page. However, I disagree with the
> > philosophy of fixing bugs in "old" distributions. Who decides when a
> > bug is important enough to be rolled back into an old distribution.
>
> Basically the maintainer of the package does (so take up the issue
> with him). I'm basically opposed to upgrading the 'stable' distribution
> after it's been released -- except for packages that have security
> flaws or were released in a 'broken' state (we shouldn't be doing that).
>
> If someone really needs the bash 2.01 version - they can always install
> it out of 'unstable' (along with libc6). No problem.
^^^
Not exactly! This actually requires about a half dozen packages be
upgraded. If you don't do it just right, it can leave your system
unuseable.
Bash 2.0 is bad enough that it never should have been released in stable.
> > I use debian at home and at work. For home use, I like to be on the
> > cutting edge. At work, my job is developing software for
> > clients, not being a systems administrator. I want a distribution
> > which is easy to maintain and as well thought out as debian. Currently,
> > soon after a distribution has been released (this happened for 1.2
> > as well as 1.3) it is abandoned by the developers. There are *still*
> > bugs in the 1.3 installation (such as the problems with X). And why
> > the hell was X 3.3 tossed in at the last minute? The 3.2 dist. didn't
> > even install right.
>
>
> Well, a whole bunch of security bugs popped up at the last minute.
> XFree is one of the biggest packages, so the X maintainer was swamped.
> It was a lot less work to package up the just-released 3.3 version.
> Unfortunately, all of this happened just as Debian 1.3 was being
> released. There was no opportunity to thoroughly test it in unstable.
>
>
> The other major problem is that we are allowing broken packages into
> 'stable'. There was also a problem where nobody realized that some of
> the X install bugs should have been 'critical'. I'm going to propose
> a new system for releasing things into stable that will solve these
> problems for the next major release.
>
> > What's the focus here? Is debian trying to be a
> > solid system or a cutting edge system.
>
> Both. But the 'stable' release should focus on being solid - and the
> 'unstable' working version should focus on being cutting edge. That
> way, somebody that is sticking with 'stable' will be assured of having
> a solid system that is only 6 months behind the 'bleeding edge'.
>
> Think of most of the Debian developers as people who are willing to
> live with the 'bleeding edge' and try to work out the bugs. The 'unstable'
> distribution can be quite unstable at times (I lost the data on my
> hard drive to one bug).
>
> Stability and being on the 'cutting edge' are mutually exclusive -- until
> a lot of work is done to fix bugs. We have 200 developers to do the work,
> which might sound like a lot, but it isn't. Nobody's doing this
> full-time as far as I know (although it may seem like it).
>
> > Paragraph 4 of the Debain
> > Social Contract ("Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software")
> > states (whole P not quoted),
> >
> >"To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of
> > high-quality, 100% free software, with no legal restrictions that
> > would prevent these kinds of use.
> >
> > I find that while the quality of distributions is generally "high"
> > the emphasis from the developers is more on "let's get that hot new
> > release going" rather than "let's get all the bugs out of this latest
> > distribution and make it completely solid".
>
> That rings true. Basically 'stable' is a snapshot of 'unstable' at a
> point in time where the developers have all taken a hiatus from adding
> new features, and concentrated on fixing bugs. Overworked (or absent)
> developers might
Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > From: Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Does bash 2.01 solve the problem? We do update 'stable' - we're > > currently debating that strategy on the debian-private (developers only) > > mailing list right now. If bash 2.0 is sufficiently broken, then that > > might > > merit putting 2.01 into 'stable'. > > I'm going to have to set this straight, since Jim alluded to a discussion > on our private list. > > The next version of the system will be called "Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1". > People who make long-term products based on Debian requested that > we not change the version number of the system if we were only making a > few bug fixes. For example, X windows was rebuilt because Richard Hang on, aren't I already running Debian 1.3 Revision 1 (or in other words Debian 1.3.1)? Anand. - -- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM/kaAWRmcAD8BdppAQGqdQP/RIO4Z/cn09o0+qX/vXHwjm2phpMixWmn SZL9ygN1rZL0Kn+8NCVigRPUAnzASMEa3ivEL7H9JyW1r5PjjlRI2ljWedxKDmhr IHGlxTFyub0yGZAMEQ3vCP0N12RRIZkXUBJdXKLEnnAbtO5RLT0gA52OlIz31LoJ 9HqfPt+nSD0= =7P8H -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
> > The next version of the system will be called "Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1". > > People who make long-term products based on Debian requested that > > we not change the version number of the system if we were only making a > > few bug fixes. For example, X windows was rebuilt because Richard > > Hang on, aren't I already running Debian 1.3 Revision 1 (or in other words > Debian 1.3.1)? 1.3.1 != 1.3.1 Revision 1. The latter is the first revision of the former. -- joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] #!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777ihttp://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, joost witteveen wrote: > > > The next version of the system will be called "Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1". > > > People who make long-term products based on Debian requested that > > > we not change the version number of the system if we were only making a > > > few bug fixes. For example, X windows was rebuilt because Richard > > > > Hang on, aren't I already running Debian 1.3 Revision 1 (or in other words > > Debian 1.3.1)? > > 1.3.1 != 1.3.1 Revision 1. > > The latter is the first revision of the former. That is not what I what I was saynig. bash$ cat /etc/debian_version 1.3 bash$ So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . My conclusion is that I am running Debian 1.3 Revision (PatchLevel) 1 - which would explain why the CD says Debian 1.3.1 I understand the commercial reason behind wanting a slower number: but Debian already has that -- the current version of Debian is 1.3 . I don't understand why you want to have two revision numbers. Anand. - -- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM/mwZmRmcAD8BdppAQEhEwQAhCL0pG0vS8BNJSB88Q9NlSGW4fmL9SOn xv3eYnNfLdjYMOZvGuD/cbeacnPM4nHGPOb2l1zHgv7lxdH+dwRb/psWSl3iDGMb IkoU5ZE3oJo9O4bEswFnB1qLRRcoZs1RIC+nH4kF+ttN5q6HGTKv2mslQRRUmpi6 DA1XYNSm3PM= =/NOf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
I concur. The next release of the stable tree should be called 1.3 Revision 2, not 1.3.1 Revision 1. What problem has this solved for CD retailers? Will they still be bummed when 1.3 Revision X+1 is released and they just got 1.3 Revision X on the shelves? Did it make any difference that it was called 1.3 Revision X instead of 1.3.X? I think not. The whole idea of appeasing marketing types seems ill-advised. They just need to learn when to pick a release to burn for retail distribution. If I were doing it, I'd never pick an X.Y.0 version. If Debian were still using the business practice of the 1.2 release: just release the fixes whenever they're deemed suitable (and re-release them if necessary) the marketing types wouldn't have this problem. Instead, by bundling and holding the patches for further testing and releasing them as unit, we now have a meaningful minor revision number and a major headache! I still like the new practice better, I just don't think the name change is going to allow the marketeers to fool themselves for very long :-). .kevin On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Anand Kumria wrote: > > 1.3.1 != 1.3.1 Revision 1. > > > > The latter is the first revision of the former. > > That is not what I what I was saynig. > > bash$ cat /etc/debian_version > 1.3 > bash$ > > So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . My > conclusion is that I am running Debian 1.3 Revision (PatchLevel) 1 - which > would explain why the CD says Debian 1.3.1 > > I understand the commercial reason behind wanting a slower number: but > Debian already has that -- the current version of Debian is 1.3 . I don't > understand why you want to have two revision numbers. > > Anand. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
> bash$ cat /etc/debian_version > 1.3 > bash$ > > So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a longer explanation. But maybe we should start with Revision 2 rather than 1. Bruce -- Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it? Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > [snip] The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know > that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and > I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a > longer explanation. > > But maybe we should start with Revision 2 rather than 1. I really wish I could have seen the original discussion. It wouldn't happen to be archived anywhere would it? The only problem I forsee is that once the scheme goes into effect, what's to stop someone from asking a cd maker for 1.3.1 revision 2? Perhaps we should periodically make a commercial release so the vendors know what they should be making, and users know what's going on. If another vendor can make cd's for the minor releases too, more power to them. But those will probably be the same ones making releases of unstable on a gold cd. Also, how will the numbers change in the future: 1.3.1 R1, 1.3.1 R2... 1.3.2 (commercial release), 1.3.2 R1...? If so, revision 1 sounds better than revision 2. Sorry if I'm digging up an old thread, Brandon -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > > So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . > > Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know > that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and > I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a > longer explanation. > > But maybe we should start with Revision 2 rather than 1. How about a longer explanation on the list? I'm _SURE_ that _MANY_ inquiring minds would like to know. Cheers, Pann -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
> How about a longer explanation on the list? I'm _SURE_ that _MANY_ > inquiring minds would like to know. You'll have noticed from debian-announce that we have reported sales of about 2200 Official 2-CD Sets over the last 8 weeks. Of those CDs, about half were sold by one technical bookstore chain in Germany at DM 19.8, about US$10.78 the other half were sold by Linux Systems Labs and Cheap*Bytes at $4 plus shipping (probably $5, but you can get many CDs shipped at that price if you go in with friends) and optional Debian donation. There may be significant numbers of sales from other companies who are not reporting to me, and I don't get exact numbers from the mail order people. This leads me to think that Debian sells in retail stores as well as as mail order. The problem is that not many retail stores carry us yet. The most widely distributed Debian incarnation in U.S. retail stores at the moment seems to be the Walnut Creek Linux box set, at US$100 to $130, which contains Debian 1.2.8 . Obviously we'd like to be available at a more current version and a much better price point (after all, Debian doesn't need to make money, we just want to get software to users) and without the other Linux distributions in the same box - Walnut Creek packages Slackware and Red Hat in the same box with Debian, and of course there's a book on Slackware in the box. One way we are approaching this is to sell into bookstores. In the U.S., bookstores have a policy of returning all product that does not sell to the distributor, often too late for the distributor to resell it elsewhere. The "pipeline" from the manufacturer to the bookstore is at least a month in duration, which is about how often we issue revisions. Thus, we were almost guaranteeing that we would obsolete our own software before it reached store shelves. There is a significant risk involved if the distributor packages a CD with a book, because they will get the (cheap) CD back along with the (much more expensive) book, and often the book will be too dog-eared to sell again, and the distributor will lose lots of money and not want to distribute Debian any longer. So, we want to make it clear that our CD, even if it is a revision or two behind, is still _current_ product in that you can easily hit our FTP site and update it to the latest and greatest. We are separating the release number from the revision number to emphasize this fact. Thanks Bruce -- Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it? Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > > How about a longer explanation on the list? I'm _SURE_ that _MANY_ > > inquiring minds would like to know. [ long explination snipped ] Ok, this makes sense. I will probably never agree with the idea, but I do agree with the reasoning: make debian more available to the public. > So, we want to make it clear that our CD, even if it is a revision or two > behind, is still _current_ product in that you can easily hit our FTP site > and update it to the latest and greatest. We are separating the release > number from the revision number to emphasize this fact. Ok, I don't think I've seen an explination of how all this effects the ftp site. Earlier today (maybe on a different list), someone mentioned moving bo-updates to bo-untested, and releasing stuff in bo-updates as it is tested. I wasn't able to understand if the bo directory would change after it's initial release. If all of this is still up in the air, just say so and I'll follow the discussion. One thing I don't understand, will there be a 2.0.1, or will it just be 2.0 R1? If there won't be a 2.0.1, then this is just a renaming of our release, and no real change of how things are done. Thanks for the explination Bruce, Brandon -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
On Wed, 20 Aug 97 12:52 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: >> How about a longer explanation on the list? I'm _SURE_ that _MANY_ >> inquiring minds would like to know. > > >So, we want to make it clear that our CD, even if it is a revision or two >behind, is still _current_ product in that you can easily hit our FTP site >and update it to the latest and greatest. We are separating the release >number from the revision number to emphasize this fact. Bruce, please don't do this. Thangs are already slacking in that bug fixes and updates have been made to 1.3.1 without and change in the minor number. Every version number should be frozen soild, even if it means we go all the way up to 1.3.199. This Microsoft style of reving, will kill the distribution. People are going to by a cd with a bug and forever be biased against a whole version of Debian. You're following the money and that is a bad thing. You should not be worried about getting Debian into the stores. You should be concerned about making the best product you can. I don't consider this a minor issue. The name itself I don't care about, it's our current version control system that's at stake. I don't think you should be making this desision (or should I say the larger CD makers making it for you) on you're own because it affects the entire way Debian releases and updates will be handled in the future. I'd like to see Debian.org get out of the CD business entirly. I'd also like to see all monitary contributions stop. I don't want to deal with an orginazation...I want to deal with the people that make the product. I should also mention I haven't heard a one of the CD-R makers ask for this. If it says 1.3 or 1.3.1 or whatever, at any time with any copy I should be able to do a crc check against what is in the master ftp server under that rev, and have it come up clean. End of story. - http://www.psychosis.com/emc/ Elite MicroComputers 908-541-4214 http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/ Linux Router Project -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
