Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Bob Proulx]

Brian wrote:
> But what do we think about this as a procedure? [1]
> 
>   apt-get update
>   apt-get -y upgrade
>   aptitude -y upgrade
>   apt-get -y dist-upgrade
>   aptitude -y dist-upgrade
>   apt-get -y autoremove

I first see that and it shocks me somewhat.  I didn't understand why
there would be a recommendation to use apt-get and aptitude one after
the other.  Usually those are alternatives and so it would be one or
the other.  I go look at the bug you referenced and read the
discussion.  My comments further down.

I wouldn't ever recommend dist-upgrade -y.  It just might produce a
bad solution and will then want to remove everything.  Just recently
on 2015-02-28 my Sid system tried for the new perl packages.  Due to
some issue the upgrade surrounding libcommon-sense-perl wanted to
remove everything associated with perl on my system.  I needed to wait
for the next archive update before it was settled.  It just isn't safe
for an automated upgrade.  It is possible to configure apt
specifically with APT::Get::Remove "false" to avoid this but that
would get in the way of normal use of apt.

Running upgrade -y with is fine.  I don't see a way to get in trouble
with it.  This illustrates one of the reasons I think 'upgrade' is
still very valuable even when also needing to run dist-upgrade.  You
can fire off upgrade -y without fear or nervousness.  Then when
running dist-upgrade the problem is simpler and the review of the
actions is also much simpler.

> When asked about it the response was [1]:
> 
>   First apt-get upgrade does the easy upgrades.
>   Then aptitude upgrade does the slightly harder upgrades (new packages).
>   Then apt-get dist-upgrade does the easy dist-upgrades.
>   Then aptitude dist-upgrade does the harder dist-upgrades where manual
>   intervention via the GUI might be needed.
> 
> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=780028

I have these thoughts about it.  But I am rushed and didn't spend a
huge amount of time with a considered opinion.

1. I don't think it *should* be needed to run aptitude after having
run apt-get.  The goal of those programs is to be equivalent in end
result.  They are completely different however and might not actually
accomplish the same result.  I think if it is then it is simply an
accident that exists at this moment in time and won't be necessary in
previous or later releases.

2. The only times I have seen the need for running one of aptitude or
apt-get instead of the other one was due to bugs and deficiencies in
the solution engine.  Time goes by.  People have improved both since
the last round of issues that I remember.  In a previous Debian
release aptitude had been recommended due to this.  Time passed and
code changes were implemented all around.  Now it is back to being the
reverse.  In many ways friendly competition here helps both.

3. Having read the bug discussion I see they are concerned about what
appears to me to be "the accidental solution result" of the two to be
different in that particular case.  (Which I don't want to mention
because I don't want to rathole into that topic here and just
mentioning it would.)  I didn't see it as a general issue either way.

4. My understanding (possibly flawed) is that aptitude's upgrade is a
dist-upgrade.  And therefore they have undocumented use of "aptitude
upgrade" in order to discourage it.  I thought they only documented
and recommend "aptitude safe-upgrade" or "aptitude full-upgrade" these
days.  Therefore the above doesn't match best practices for aptitude.
In order to get the "apt-get upgrade" behavior out of aptitude I think
it is "aptitude --no-new-installs safe-upgrade".  Having done
"aptitude upgrade" I think the following "apt-get dist-upgrade" won't
ever have any work to do.  Or if it does then it is a deficiency of
aptitude.

5. It looked to me to be more of a cargo cult science rather than real
science.  I think they were simply trying to cover all possibilities
by doing both with the thinking of how could one go wrong if you used
both?

Bottom line is that I think people that prefer apt-get (like me) would
say that only apt-get is necessary and will write the recipe to only
use apt-get.  People that prefer aptitude will say that only aptitude
is necessary and will write the recipe to only use aptitude.  I think
that is fine.  Friendly competition of features between the tools can
be a win for the user.  For the most part I expect either to be
interchangeable with the other.  I would like to see a two recipe
solution where one uses apt-get and one uses aptitude.  I think they
would be equivalent to each other.

Full disclosure is that I prefer apt-get over aptitude.  Speed and
performance is one reason since apt-get is a lot faster.  However for
people who like to manually shape the solution and have spent the time
to learn the tool I can see aptitude being very good for them.  I have
not invested the time to learn aptitude's interactive interface.
Using apt-get produces t

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Liam O'Toole]

On 2015-03-10, Ric Moore  wrote:
> On 03/10/2015 04:53 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>> On Tuesday 10 March 2015 03:53:29 Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:
>>> all I want is the One True Directive(TM)
>>
>> Ubuntu?? ;-)
>>
>> Sorry, Sivaram.  But this is Debian.  People don't usually use Debian
>> if they want the One True Directive!  We all have different opinions.
>> A lot depends on which version you are using, and how very much it
>> would matter if something went wrong.
>>
>> For Jessie, at present, I just use:
>>
>> # aptitude update # aptitude safe-upgrade # aptitude full-upgrade
>>
>> And that is because Jessie is still Testing and I don't do it often
>> enough, so there are a lot of updates when I do do it.
>>
>> For fewer updates, so always for Wheezy, I just do:
>>
>> # aptitude update # aptitude full-upgrade
>>
>> *So* *far* my systems have not blown up in my face.
>>
>> Only you can know what you will feel comfortable with.  I believe in
>> KISS.  Some people are only happy with complication.  I am only
>> mildly paranoid.  Some people are paralytic with paranoia.  I'm
>> afraid you have to choose your own degree of paranoia and find out
>> what you are comfortable with.
>>
>> But if you want to be told what to do, and told the same thing by
>> everybody, don't use Debian!!
>
> That is the wisest thing I've ever read on the Internet! :) Ric

Ha! I agree. And a variation would be: "But if you want to be told what
to do, and told the same thing by everybody, don't use ask questions on
this list"! 

-- 

Liam



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnmfueuh.bd3.liam.p.otoole@dipsy.tubbynet

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Joris Bolsens]

On 03/04/2015 09:33 PM, Ken Heard wrote:
> In the next month or so I will have to do a clean OS installation in
> two desktops. Jessie is now frozen (Debian's contribution to retarding
> global warming?); and there are apparently fewer RC bugs at this point
> after the freeze than there were at the same point in time after the
> freezing of previous releases.
> 
> I see that RC1 of Jessie is now available.  I would consequently
> appreciate opinions as to whether Jessie is now or will be by mid
> April sufficiently stable for such installations, or should I install
> Wheezy instead and upgrade to Jessie when it is officially declared
> stable?
> 
> I would much prefer the one step approach -- install Jessie within two
> months and live with non RC bugs for a while -- to the two step
> approach -- Wheezy now and upgrade to Jessie six months later more or
> less.  Perhaps when I get around to those installations there may be a
> further RC release of Jessie?
> 
> Regards, Ken
> 
> 

I've been using Jessie for about 6 months to a year now (as my main OS).
First few months were shaky, getting everything setup and there were
some bugs, but lately its been even more stable than my other laptop
which runs Ubuntu 14.04 LTS.

So *IMO*, yes, Jessie is a good option for an everyday desktop.

~Joris



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Ric Moore]

On 03/10/2015 04:53 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:

On Tuesday 10 March 2015 03:53:29 Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:

all I want is the One True Directive(TM)


Ubuntu?? ;-)

Sorry, Sivaram.  But this is Debian.  People don't usually use Debian if they
want the One True Directive!  We all have different opinions.  A lot depends
on which version you are using, and how very much it would matter if
something went wrong.

For Jessie, at present, I just use:

# aptitude update
# aptitude safe-upgrade
# aptitude full-upgrade

And that is because Jessie is still Testing and I don't do it often enough, so
there are a lot of updates when I do do it.

For fewer updates, so always for Wheezy, I just do:

# aptitude update
# aptitude full-upgrade

*So* *far* my systems have not blown up in my face.

Only you can know what you will feel comfortable with.  I believe in KISS.
Some people are only happy with complication.  I am only mildly paranoid.
Some people are paralytic with paranoia.  I'm afraid you have to choose your
own degree of paranoia and find out what you are comfortable with.

But if you want to be told what to do, and told the same thing by everybody,
don't use Debian!!


That is the wisest thing I've ever read on the Internet! :) Ric



--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54feb2b1.8030...@gmail.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Lisi Reisz]

On Tuesday 10 March 2015 03:53:29 Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:
> all I want is the One True Directive(TM)

Ubuntu?? ;-)

Sorry, Sivaram.  But this is Debian.  People don't usually use Debian if they 
want the One True Directive!  We all have different opinions.  A lot depends 
on which version you are using, and how very much it would matter if 
something went wrong.

For Jessie, at present, I just use:

# aptitude update
# aptitude safe-upgrade
# aptitude full-upgrade

And that is because Jessie is still Testing and I don't do it often enough, so 
there are a lot of updates when I do do it.

For fewer updates, so always for Wheezy, I just do:

# aptitude update
# aptitude full-upgrade

*So* *far* my systems have not blown up in my face.

Only you can know what you will feel comfortable with.  I believe in KISS.  
Some people are only happy with complication.  I am only mildly paranoid.  
Some people are paralytic with paranoia.  I'm afraid you have to choose your 
own degree of paranoia and find out what you are comfortable with.

But if you want to be told what to do, and told the same thing by everybody, 
don't use Debian!!

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503100853.17356.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Mihamina Rakotomandimby]

On 03/10/2015 08:52 AM, Ken Heard wrote:

I just want a tidy ship and all I want is the One True
>Directive(TM).

Is such a thing possible it IT?

This is not, but there no one true.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54fe95be.7000...@rktmb.org

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Ken Heard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 2015-03-10 10:53, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:


> As someone who is a deb newbie following these posts, can the
> gurus make up their collective minds and let forth the mantra
> invocation that I need to invoke?  ;)
> 
> I just want a tidy ship and all I want is the One True
> Directive(TM).

Is such a thing possible it IT?

Regards, Ken


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlT+hqYACgkQlNlJzOkJmTdHrQCdGK0XWtWALIXnVhopScM+5L97
Nk8AniaPxj90nWuGMqGy49f3+T0YTi0j
=3/b2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54fe86a6.60...@teksavvy.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Sivaram Neelakantan]

On Mon, Mar 09 2015,Brian  wrote:

> On Sun 08 Mar 2015 at 00:58:29 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:

[snipped 20 lines]

> But what do we think about this as a procedure? [1]
>
>   apt-get update
>   apt-get -y upgrade
>   aptitude -y upgrade
>   apt-get -y dist-upgrade
>   aptitude -y dist-upgrade
>   apt-get -y autoremove
>
> When asked about it the response was [1]:
>
>   First apt-get upgrade does the easy upgrades.
>   Then aptitude upgrade does the slightly harder upgrades (new packages).
>   Then apt-get dist-upgrade does the easy dist-upgrades.
>   Then aptitude dist-upgrade does the harder dist-upgrades where manual
>   intervention via the GUI might be needed.
>
> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=780028
>
>

As someone who is a deb newbie following these posts, can the gurus
make up their collective minds and let forth the mantra invocation
that I need to invoke?  ;)

I just want a tidy ship and all I want is the One True Directive(TM).

 sivaram
 -- 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87h9ttcxty@gmail.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Brian]

On Sun 08 Mar 2015 at 00:58:29 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:

> Brian wrote:
> > The Wheezy point releases have no BIND9 updates so, without searching
> > further, I am unable to check that new libraries were installed. Even
> > if they were they would be from stable, which is ok.
> 
> This was a recent BIND9 upgrade in Wheezy on 18 Feb 2015.
> 
>   https://www.debian.org/security/2015/dsa-3162
> 
> The BIND package is actually a combined set of libraries plus
> executables.  They don't have a stable API.  Therefore the entire
> bundle always needs to be updated.  The libraries have the version
> number encoded in the name.  Therefore it requires dist-upgrade in
> order to handle installing bind security releases.

Thank you for the explanation. It requires very little effort to extend
separate upgrade and dist-upgrade steps to stable so I for one will
strongly consider moving in that direction.

But what do we think about this as a procedure? [1]

  apt-get update
  apt-get -y upgrade
  aptitude -y upgrade
  apt-get -y dist-upgrade
  aptitude -y dist-upgrade
  apt-get -y autoremove

When asked about it the response was [1]:

  First apt-get upgrade does the easy upgrades.
  Then aptitude upgrade does the slightly harder upgrades (new packages).
  Then apt-get dist-upgrade does the easy dist-upgrades.
  Then aptitude dist-upgrade does the harder dist-upgrades where manual
  intervention via the GUI might be needed.

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=780028


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/09032015231100.51cf187da...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Bob Proulx]

Brian wrote:
> The Wheezy point releases have no BIND9 updates so, without searching
> further, I am unable to check that new libraries were installed. Even
> if they were they would be from stable, which is ok.

This was a recent BIND9 upgrade in Wheezy on 18 Feb 2015.

  https://www.debian.org/security/2015/dsa-3162

The BIND package is actually a combined set of libraries plus
executables.  They don't have a stable API.  Therefore the entire
bundle always needs to be updated.  The libraries have the version
number encoded in the name.  Therefore it requires dist-upgrade in
order to handle installing bind security releases.

  root@despair:/tmp# debdiff bind9_9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3_i386.deb 
bind9_9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4_i386.deb
  File lists identical (after any substitutions)

  Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)
  
  Depends: libbind9-80 (= [-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-] 
{+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+} libc6 (>= 2.4), libcap2 (>= 2.10), libdns88 
(= [-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+} 
libgssapi-krb5-2 (>= 1.6.dfsg.2), libisc84 (= 
[-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+} 
libisccc80 (= [-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-] 
{+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+} libisccfg82 (= 
[-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+} 
liblwres80 (= [-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-] 
{+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+} libssl1.0.0 (>= 1.0.0), libxml2 (>= 2.7.4), 
debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, netbase, adduser, lsb-base (>= 3.2-14), 
bind9utils (= [-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-] 
{+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+} net-tools
  Installed-Size: [-811-] {+936+}
  Version: [-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4+}

Sometimes other things sneak in too.  At one time a jpeg library
release linked against another newer library than it had originally
been released with and therefore required a new library that it really
shouldn't have needed.  I recall submitting a bug and it was simply
closed.

Bob


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[David Wright]

Quoting Miles Fidelman (mfidel...@meetinghouse.net) in a previous posting:
> I think the question was quite clear as to meaning - the OP asked is
> Jessie (i.e., Debian stable), stable (in the plain English use of the
> word) enough for general use.  Not confusing at all.

Jessie is not Debian stable.

Wheezy is Debian stable.

Quoting Miles Fidelman (mfidel...@meetinghouse.net):
> Brian wrote:
> >On Sat 07 Mar 2015 at 09:14:31 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> >>--- in enterprise environments, that's typically disabled - with
> >>updates distributed internally on a less frequent basis
> >>--- this is particularly true in server and system environments,
> >>that are under maintenance -- one doesn't want updates to the O/S to
> >>break application software (as it quite often does)
> >Breakage in Debian in this regard does not appear to be common. Do you
> >have an example?
> 
> Can't think of a specific example, but it's fairly common to install
> a package, and find that it pulls in lots of dependencies.  Perl
> applications come to mind as particularly finicky about "requires
> version xxx or higher of package yyy."

That's why Debian stable and Debian oldstable have such old versions
of software, and the exceptions (like browsers, see 5.2 in
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-information.html
) have no role on servers.

> >>Beyond that, pretty much any systems administrator will tell you
> >>that "stable" is a pretty well understood concept.  It's the point
> >>at which:
> >>-- most bugs, not caught during product testing, have been caught and fixed
> >>-- enough security scrubbing has been done that the code has been
> >>relatively well hardened
> >Sounds like Debian stable.
> 
> Does, doesn't it.  Though... I've yet to find a "stable" version of
> anything (Debian included) that's really wrung out in its initial
> release.  And, I'll repeat, if folks are recommending daily updates
> to Jessie, then it doesn't sound all that "stable" to me.

Jessie is Debian testing and is frozen. Maintainers should be
releasing bugfixes thick and fast. Unless you update regularly,
you won't know about them and unless you upgrade regularly, you
won't get the benefits.

Because new versions of software are excluded and bugfixes are being
made, then the distribution should only improve with time. So if the
OP is running non-servers (he said desktops), and he's happy with the
comments from satisfied users of jessie, then I would suggest that
"sufficiently stable for such installations" has little to do with
your meaning of stable, and nothing to do with Debian's.

> >>There will always be a few bugs, and there's always the new security
> >>exploit around the corner - but with any halfway decent coding and
> >>testing practices, those should be few and far between - to the
> >>point that an update/upgrade should rarely be necessary.
> >Sounds like Debian stable.
> >
> >I hope we are not going to quibble about how many months there are in
> >"months at a time".
> 
> I'll repeat - not if folks are saying it needs daily updates.
> 
> >
> >>To me, a "stable" system - and mind you, I'm talking about servers
> >>here - is one that doesn't need updating or upgrading for months at
> >>a time, if at all; except in the cases of:
> >>-- deploying new application software that requires a new o/s featurea
> >Sounds like Debian stable.
> 
> Same again.
> >
> >>-- responding to a CERT alert about a newly discovered vulnerability
> >Sounds like Debian stable.
> >
> >
> Same again.
> 
> Which brings us back to the OP's original question, paraphrased
> slightly: "Is Jessie stable?" (In either the plain English, or the
> Debian sense of the word.)"  To me, I'd answer that two ways:
> - by the Debian definition, Jessie is "testing" - hence explicitly
> NOT "stable"
> - by the plain English definition - if it needs daily updating, then
> it's NOT "stable" enough for general use

I think that if you going to debate the meanings of words, then you
should be precise about which meaning you are using.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/03/msg00212.html
gives a summary of the terms update and upgrade in the Debian sense,
as does man apt-get. https://www.debian.org/releases/ gives a summary
of the terms stable etc.

If you read these, you may perceive that a daily (at least) update is
a perfectly sensible course of action for any Debian version. The
package lists are updated in a highly efficient manner. You'll see
"Hit" in place of "Get" when a file is unchanged, and any transfers
are made efficient with diffs.

If you're tracking Debian stable on a non-server, then an upgrade on a
similar schedule is sensible too. For days/weeks at a time the result
will be "Nothing happens". If you're running a server, just add -d and
any new packages will be downloaded and not installed. You can then
examine the changes log.

If you don't update and upgrade (in the Debian sense) frequently, then
you're wasting the timely efforts of

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Miles Fidelman]

Brian wrote:

On Sat 07 Mar 2015 at 09:14:31 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:


Well, yes and no.
-- Yes: Typical desktop operating systems (e.g., Windows, Mac OS),
and applications, "call home" periodically to check for updates,

Debian doesn't work like that unless it is configured to do so.


Duh   The recommendation made here is, however, to do daily update.




but,
-- No:
--- in enterprise environments, that's typically disabled - with
updates distributed internally on a less frequent basis
--- this is particularly true in server and system environments,
that are under maintenance -- one doesn't want updates to the O/S to
break application software (as it quite often does)

Breakage in Debian in this regard does not appear to be common. Do you
have an example?


Can't think of a specific example, but it's fairly common to install a 
package, and find that it pulls in lots of dependencies.  Perl 
applications come to mind as particularly finicky about "requires 
version xxx or higher of package yyy."

Beyond that, pretty much any systems administrator will tell you
that "stable" is a pretty well understood concept.  It's the point
at which:
-- most bugs, not caught during product testing, have been caught and fixed
-- enough security scrubbing has been done that the code has been
relatively well hardened

Sounds like Debian stable.


Does, doesn't it.  Though... I've yet to find a "stable" version of 
anything (Debian included) that's really wrung out in its initial 
release.  And, I'll repeat, if folks are recommending daily updates to 
Jessie, then it doesn't sound all that "stable" to me.






There will always be a few bugs, and there's always the new security
exploit around the corner - but with any halfway decent coding and
testing practices, those should be few and far between - to the
point that an update/upgrade should rarely be necessary.

Sounds like Debian stable.

I hope we are not going to quibble about how many months there are in
"months at a time".


I'll repeat - not if folks are saying it needs daily updates.




To me, a "stable" system - and mind you, I'm talking about servers
here - is one that doesn't need updating or upgrading for months at
a time, if at all; except in the cases of:
-- deploying new application software that requires a new o/s featurea

Sounds like Debian stable.


Same again.



-- responding to a CERT alert about a newly discovered vulnerability

Sounds like Debian stable.



Same again.

Which brings us back to the OP's original question, paraphrased 
slightly: "Is Jessie stable?" (In either the plain English, or the 
Debian sense of the word.)"  To me, I'd answer that two ways:
- by the Debian definition, Jessie is "testing" - hence explicitly NOT 
"stable"
- by the plain English definition - if it needs daily updating, then 
it's NOT "stable" enough for general use


Miles Fidelman



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54fb6b4f.3050...@meetinghouse.net

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Brian]

On Sat 07 Mar 2015 at 09:14:31 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> Well, yes and no.
> -- Yes: Typical desktop operating systems (e.g., Windows, Mac OS),
> and applications, "call home" periodically to check for updates,

Debian doesn't work like that unless it is configured to do so.

> but,
> -- No:
> --- in enterprise environments, that's typically disabled - with
> updates distributed internally on a less frequent basis
> --- this is particularly true in server and system environments,
> that are under maintenance -- one doesn't want updates to the O/S to
> break application software (as it quite often does)

Breakage in Debian in this regard does not appear to be common. Do you
have an example?

> Beyond that, pretty much any systems administrator will tell you
> that "stable" is a pretty well understood concept.  It's the point
> at which:
> -- most bugs, not caught during product testing, have been caught and fixed
> -- enough security scrubbing has been done that the code has been
> relatively well hardened

Sounds like Debian stable.

> There will always be a few bugs, and there's always the new security
> exploit around the corner - but with any halfway decent coding and
> testing practices, those should be few and far between - to the
> point that an update/upgrade should rarely be necessary.

Sounds like Debian stable.

I hope we are not going to quibble about how many months there are in
"months at a time".

> To me, a "stable" system - and mind you, I'm talking about servers
> here - is one that doesn't need updating or upgrading for months at
> a time, if at all; except in the cases of:
> -- deploying new application software that requires a new o/s featurea

Sounds like Debian stable.

> -- responding to a CERT alert about a newly discovered vulnerability

Sounds like Debian stable.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/07032015194311.969134aaa...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Brian]

On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 18:26:46 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:

> Brian wrote:
> > Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the
> > > equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and
> > > sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want to get ALL those
> > > changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do that. This is
> > > recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable, revert to "upgrade" for
> > > the most part.
> > 
> > I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to
> > pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them.
> > In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable.
> 
> It isn't one or the other.  You need both.  They do different things
> and for different reasons.
> 
> A normal daily cycle for me on any sytem is usually this sequence.
> Note that I am using both 'etckeeper' and have backups and thefore
> have no fear of purging an /etc configuration that I might want to
> refer to again later.  Therefore I always purge instead of remove to
> keep the system clean.
> 
>   1. apt-get update
>   2. apt-get upgrade
>   3. apt-get dist-upgrade
>   4. apt-get autoremove --purge
>   5. apt-get clean
>   6. reportbug --ui=text brokenpackage

[Snip]

> On a Stable sytem 99.44% of the time only 1 and 2 are needed and I
> stop there and jump to clean and then stop.  But every BIND9 security
> upgrade for example always pulls in new libraries and can't be
> upgraded in place.  Therefore after the upgrade if there are packages
> still pending then I proceed through dist-upgrade and the rest.  I
> strongly recommend using upgrade first followed by dist-upgrade.
> Hopefully reportbug is only rarely needed on Stable.

I agree with the general principal expressed in 1, 2 and 3. However, it
was stable which was the focus of my remark and we could have something
to learn from this as to how upgrades on it work.

The Wheezy point releases have no BIND9 updates so, without searching
further, I am unable to check that new libraries were installed. Even
if they were they would be from stable, which is ok.

(I hope there are no shenanagins with backports. which is not part of
a stable release).


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/07032015192747.bd4101762...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >
> >> Brian wrote:
> >>> On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >>>
>  On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:
> 
> > Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom.  So for me now Jessie
> > RC1 is it.
>  FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or
>  the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change
>  quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want
>  to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do
>  that. This is recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable,
>  revert to "upgrade" for the most part.
> >>> I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely
> >>> to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need
> >>> them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for
> >>> stable.
> >>>
> >> Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not
> >> meet any definition of "stable" that I'm familiar with.
> > As far a Debian is concerned, you have the incorrect definition of
> > "stable."  With Debin "Stable" means "unchanging," without serious
> > bugs, not less prone to crash.  It's confusing, I agree.  I wish a
> > different term had been chosen.
> 
> I think the question was quite clear as to meaning - the OP asked is 
> Jessie (i.e., Debian stable), stable (in the plain English use of the 
> word) enough for general use.  Not confusing at all.

In my reply to the OP (not the one above to you), I said that Jessie,
even as an RC1, was suitable for general use.  But that daily
update/dist-upgrades were necessary to keep it so as it made its way
toward Stable.

FWIW, the Jessie Beta1 I installed (terminal only) in a VM months ago
has had no problems.  And I've dist-upgraded it only twice.  I've even
converted it to sysvinit.  Not even a hiccup.  My intent was to
ultimately convert to runit and runitinit for testing, but only
installed runit. No problems. As far as runitinit, that conversion's
been on the backburner for weeks.

> >
> > [snip]

B


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150307095123.02f36...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Miles Fidelman]

Patrick Bartek wrote:

On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Miles Fidelman wrote:


Brian wrote:

On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:


On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:


Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom.  So for me now Jessie
RC1 is it.

FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or
the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change
quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want
to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do
that. This is recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable,
revert to "upgrade" for the most part.

I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely
to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need
them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable.


Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not
meet any definition of "stable" that I'm familiar with.

As far a Debian is concerned, you have the incorrect definition of
"stable."  With Debin "Stable" means "unchanging," without serious
bugs, not less prone to crash.  It's confusing, I agree.  I wish a
different term had been chosen.


I think the question was quite clear as to meaning - the OP asked is 
Jessie (i.e., Debian stable), stable (in the plain English use of the 
word) enough for general use.  Not confusing at all.


Security and bug fixes are a part of every OS and app.  I "update" my
system database daily, that is I check daily for any "fixes."  Some do
so weekly.  In any case, this may require "upgrading," i.e. something
new is installed replacing something old that needs the fix, about
every week or two.  Sometimes, it can be one tiny library; other times
it can be a dozen system files, including the kernel.



Well, yes and no.
-- Yes: Typical desktop operating systems (e.g., Windows, Mac OS), and 
applications, "call home" periodically to check for updates, but,

-- No:
--- in enterprise environments, that's typically disabled - with updates 
distributed internally on a less frequent basis
--- this is particularly true in server and system environments, that 
are under maintenance -- one doesn't want updates to the O/S to break 
application software (as it quite often does)


Beyond that, pretty much any systems administrator will tell you that 
"stable" is a pretty well understood concept.  It's the point at which:

-- most bugs, not caught during product testing, have been caught and fixed
-- enough security scrubbing has been done that the code has been 
relatively well hardened


There will always be a few bugs, and there's always the new security 
exploit around the corner - but with any halfway decent coding and 
testing practices, those should be few and far between - to the point 
that an update/upgrade should rarely be necessary.


To me, a "stable" system - and mind you, I'm talking about servers here 
- is one that doesn't need updating or upgrading for months at a time, 
if at all; except in the cases of:

-- deploying new application software that requires a new o/s feature
-- responding to a CERT alert about a newly discovered vulnerability

Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54fb07c7.1070...@meetinghouse.net

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Joe]

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:26:46 -0700
Bob Proulx  wrote:


> 
> On a Sid Unstable system there are a lot of transitions.  Running
> dist-upgrade only mostly works but sometimes the transitions and other
> noise confuse APT and it wants to take a different path than we want
> it to take.  Such as to remove everything.  Running upgrade first
> upgrades everything that can be upgraded without removing anything or
> adding anything.  Then the subsequent dist-upgrade has a simpler
> solution to find and will usually do the right thing.
> 

I would add here that a Sid system which is only occasionally upgraded
can present aptitude with a serious problem, which can hang it for
hours (I lost patience, but it might have succeeded in the end) so I'd
recommend apt-get in this situation.

-- 
Joe


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150307094818.0c4f6...@jresid.jretrading.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom.  So for me now Jessie
> >>> RC1 is it.
> >> FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or
> >> the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change
> >> quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want
> >> to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do
> >> that. This is recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable,
> >> revert to "upgrade" for the most part.
> > I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely
> > to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need
> > them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable.
> >
> 
> Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not
> meet any definition of "stable" that I'm familiar with.

As far a Debian is concerned, you have the incorrect definition of
"stable."  With Debin "Stable" means "unchanging," without serious
bugs, not less prone to crash.  It's confusing, I agree.  I wish a
different term had been chosen.

Security and bug fixes are a part of every OS and app.  I "update" my
system database daily, that is I check daily for any "fixes."  Some do
so weekly.  In any case, this may require "upgrading," i.e. something
new is installed replacing something old that needs the fix, about
every week or two.  Sometimes, it can be one tiny library; other times
it can be a dozen system files, including the kernel.

B


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150306220427.53857...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Brian wrote:

> On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:
> > 
> > > Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom.  So for me now Jessie
> > > RC1 is it.
> > 
> > FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the
> > equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly
> > and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want to get
> > ALL those changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do that. This
> > is recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable, revert to
> > "upgrade" for the most part.
> 
> I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to
> pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them.
> In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable.

It depends on whether you want an "unchanging" system -- what "Stable"
means in Debian-speak -- as opposed to less prone to crash.  Upgrade
only brings in bug and security fixes for what's installed.  Only
necessary changes. Dist-upgrade brings in that plus more extensive
changes.

In my experience with Wheezy after it went Stable, I've only needed
dist-upgrade, maybe, 3 or 4 times, and that's solely due to a couple
apps from backports.  If you only use upgrade and something needs a
major "fix" that only dist-upgrade can handle, you're notified during
the update part.


B


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150306213758.71042...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Bob Proulx]

Brian wrote:
> Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the
> > equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and
> > sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want to get ALL those
> > changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do that. This is
> > recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable, revert to "upgrade" for
> > the most part.
> 
> I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to
> pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them.
> In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable.

It isn't one or the other.  You need both.  They do different things
and for different reasons.

A normal daily cycle for me on any sytem is usually this sequence.
Note that I am using both 'etckeeper' and have backups and thefore
have no fear of purging an /etc configuration that I might want to
refer to again later.  Therefore I always purge instead of remove to
keep the system clean.

  1. apt-get update
  2. apt-get upgrade
  3. apt-get dist-upgrade
  4. apt-get autoremove --purge
  5. apt-get clean
  6. reportbug --ui=text brokenpackage

On a Sid Unstable system there are a lot of transitions.  Running
dist-upgrade only mostly works but sometimes the transitions and other
noise confuse APT and it wants to take a different path than we want
it to take.  Such as to remove everything.  Running upgrade first
upgrades everything that can be upgraded without removing anything or
adding anything.  Then the subsequent dist-upgrade has a simpler
solution to find and will usually do the right thing.

Even during our current freeze in Sid there are always a lot of daily
thrash of package churn.  And this time is the quiet time.
Immediately after release when Sid unfreezes the floodgates will be
open and there will be a lot of daily breakage.  In that case step 6
is reportbug.  When the thrash is high is when Unstable also needs to
have Testing set in the sources.list.  Sometimes that is required to
step across transitions.

On Testing it is again the same.  It isn't quite as crazy as Unstable.
Thank the people running Unstable and reporting bugs preventing those
bugs from flowing into Testing.  Again running upgrade followed by
dist-upgrade leads APT more gently through and avoids a lot of problems.

On a Stable sytem 99.44% of the time only 1 and 2 are needed and I
stop there and jump to clean and then stop.  But every BIND9 security
upgrade for example always pulls in new libraries and can't be
upgraded in place.  Therefore after the upgrade if there are packages
still pending then I proceed through dist-upgrade and the rest.  I
strongly recommend using upgrade first followed by dist-upgrade.
Hopefully reportbug is only rarely needed on Stable.

Bob



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Ouch, sorry. Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Lisi Reisz]

Shouldn't rush.  My typing is lousy.  Herewith again:

> On Friday 06 March 2015 23:15:12 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Friday 06 March 2015 15:22:21 Miles Fidelman wrote:

> > > Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet
> > > any definition of "stable" that I'm familiar with.
> > >
> > > Miles Fidelman

It doesn't.  I would say it needs weekly updates.  And it has been said to
be "stable enough for general use" not "stable".  It's not the same thing.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503070035.32269.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Lisi Reisz]

On Friday 06 March 2015 23:15:12 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 06 March 2015 15:22:21 Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > Brian wrote:
> > > On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:
> > >>> Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom.  So for me now Jessie
> > >>> RC1 is it.
> > >>
> > >> FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or
> > >> the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change
> > >> quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want
> > >> to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do
> > >> that. This is recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable, revert
> > >> to "upgrade" for the most part.
> > >
> > > I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely
> > > to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need
> > > them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable.
> >
> > Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet
> > any definition of "stable" that I'm familiar with.
> >
> > Miles Fidelman

It doesn't.  I would say it needs weekly updates.  And ir has been said ot 
be "stable enough for general use" not "stable".  It's not teh sam ehting.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503070006.06635.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 06 March 2015 15:22:21 Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:
> >>> Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom.  So for me now Jessie
> >>> RC1 is it.
> >>
> >> FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or
> >> the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change
> >> quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want
> >> to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do
> >> that. This is recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable, revert
> >> to "upgrade" for the most part.
> >
> > I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely
> > to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need
> > them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable.
>
> Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet
> any definition of "stable" that I'm familiar with.
>
> Miles Fidelman

Poor choice of thinking IMO Miles.

Debian has zero control over what the black hat might do yet today, 
requiring a package or 2 to be updated in order to block the jerks. That 
is not a Debian (or use name of favorite os here) problem, its a black 
hat problem.

Me, I'm in favor of the old west's "Wanted, $25,000 reward for so and so, 
D.O.A." posters, bring him in, in any condition  to collect your reward.  
But who funds the reward?  Good question that...

OTOH, those jerks keep pushing us to ever more secure software, so they 
are in some sense "improving the breed too."

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503061815.12346.ghesk...@wdtv.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Lisi Reisz]

On Friday 06 March 2015 20:11:52 Brian wrote:
> On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:
> > > Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom.  So for me now Jessie RC1
> > > is it.
> >
> > FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the
> > equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and
> > sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want to get ALL those
> > changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do that. This is
> > recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable, revert to "upgrade" for
> > the most part.
>
> I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to
> pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them.
> In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable.

I agree.  I always use full-upgrade (I use aptitude), unless there is a 
compelling reason why not.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503062105.32932.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Erwan David]

Le 06/03/2015 21:22, Miles Fidelman a écrit :
> Brian wrote:
>> On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:
>>>
 Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom.  So for me now Jessie RC1
 is it.
>>> FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the
>>> equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and
>>> sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want to get ALL those
>>> changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do that. This is
>>> recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable, revert to "upgrade" for
>>> the most part.
>> I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to
>> pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them.
>> In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable.
>>
>
> Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet
> any definition of "stable" that I'm familiar with.
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
>
>
>
It does not need daily update. But some update must be done ASAP...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54fa0cfd.4020...@rail.eu.org

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Miles Fidelman]

Brian wrote:

On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:


On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:


Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom.  So for me now Jessie RC1
is it.

FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the
equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and
sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want to get ALL those
changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do that. This is
recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable, revert to "upgrade" for
the most part.

I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to
pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them.
In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable.



Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet 
any definition of "stable" that I'm familiar with.


Miles Fidelman




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54fa0c7d.9050...@meetinghouse.net

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Brian]

On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:
> 
> > Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom.  So for me now Jessie RC1
> > is it.
> 
> FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the
> equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and
> sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want to get ALL those
> changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do that. This is
> recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable, revert to "upgrade" for
> the most part.

I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to
pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them.
In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/06032015200627.a6337c4e1...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom.  So for me now Jessie RC1
> is it.

FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the
equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and
sometimes majorly on the path to Stable.  You'll want to get ALL those
changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do that. This is
recommended by Debian.  Once Jessie is Stable, revert to "upgrade" for
the most part.


B  


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150306092723.782d8...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Sivaram Neelakantan]

On Fri, Mar 06 2015,Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Thursday 05 March 2015 19:43:35 Ric Moore wrote:
>> It's probably more
>> solid than it's Ubuntu counterpart. Ric
>
> Correction:  it's CERTAINLY more solid than its Ubuntu counterpart. ;-)

Thus starts the flame wars.  :)



 sivaram
 -- 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87oao63gcr@gmail.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Ken Heard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom.  So for me now Jessie RC1
is it.

Regards, Ken

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlT5IagACgkQlNlJzOkJmTenMACcDU5QwjjiXzegcr6Q5cpvQwHQ
XzcAn1sZx8xsKPGyJjHcSe2CT/GI0zuF
=jXiT
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54f921a9.9060...@teksavvy.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Lisi Reisz]

On Thursday 05 March 2015 19:43:35 Ric Moore wrote:
> It's probably more
> solid than it's Ubuntu counterpart. Ric

Correction:  it's CERTAINLY more solid than its Ubuntu counterpart. ;-)

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150306.21241.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[lostson]

On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 22:34 +0100, Eugen Wintersberger wrote:
> > Adding my noise;  It was simple for a newbie like me;  I did an
> > upgrade and a fresh install and both were uneventful activities.  It
> > simply works.
> 
> Adding some noise too. I did a new installation of Jessie on a Lenovo
> T440s about a month ago and immediately afterwards upgraded my desktop
> system to Jessie.
> The conclusion: best Debian ever.
> 

 I have 5 separate systems all running Jessie since the freeze, and even
my wife and kids like it. 

LostSon




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Eugen Wintersberger]

> Adding my noise;  It was simple for a newbie like me;  I did an
> upgrade and a fresh install and both were uneventful activities.  It
> simply works.

Adding some noise too. I did a new installation of Jessie on a Lenovo
T440s about a month ago and immediately afterwards upgraded my desktop
system to Jessie.
The conclusion: best Debian ever.

Eugen

> 
> 
>  sivaram
>  -- 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Ric Moore]

On 03/05/2015 12:33 AM, Ken Heard wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

In the next month or so I will have to do a clean OS installation in
two desktops. Jessie is now frozen (Debian's contribution to retarding
global warming?); and there are apparently fewer RC bugs at this point
after the freeze than there were at the same point in time after the
freezing of previous releases.


Jessie has been rock solid for me for many months. It's probably more 
solid than it's Ubuntu counterpart. Ric




--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54f8b1e7.7030...@gmail.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Sivaram Neelakantan]

On Thu, Mar 05 2015,Lisi Reisz wrote:


[snipped 7 lines]

> A few weeks ago I used the Jessie RC1 Installer, the day after it was 
> released.  I loved it.  It was IMHO nicer than the Wheezy one, easier to use 
> for what I wanted it for (I did not want to install Gnome, but it looked as 
> though it would have catered well for other quirks).  If you want to install 
> Jessie, don't faff around with the Wheezy installer and upgrading, just go 
> for it!  Just my 2p.
>
> FWIW, I am enjoying Jessie so much (on my TV box) that my desktop, still on 
> Wheezy, is going to be upgraded sooner than I had intended.

Adding my noise;  It was simple for a newbie like me;  I did an
upgrade and a fresh install and both were uneventful activities.  It
simply works.


 sivaram
 -- 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87r3t3xxon@gmail.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Lisi Reisz]

On Thursday 05 March 2015 07:17:25 Bob Proulx wrote:
> Having said that you might just want to go ahead and test the new
> Jessie installer.  Can't hurt.  It will either work (install
> successfully) or it won't.  Either way you will have learned something
> and can plan for it.  If it fails then please make an installation
> report with the details of the problems.

A few weeks ago I used the Jessie RC1 Installer, the day after it was 
released.  I loved it.  It was IMHO nicer than the Wheezy one, easier to use 
for what I wanted it for (I did not want to install Gnome, but it looked as 
though it would have catered well for other quirks).  If you want to install 
Jessie, don't faff around with the Wheezy installer and upgrading, just go 
for it!  Just my 2p.

FWIW, I am enjoying Jessie so much (on my TV box) that my desktop, still on 
Wheezy, is going to be upgraded sooner than I had intended.

Lisi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503051235.59001.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Bob Proulx]

Ken Heard wrote:
> I see that RC1 of Jessie is now available.  I would consequently
> appreciate opinions as to whether Jessie is now or will be by mid
> April sufficiently stable for such installations, or should I install
> Wheezy instead and upgrade to Jessie when it is officially declared
> stable?
>
> I would much prefer the one step approach -- install Jessie within two
> months and live with non RC bugs for a while -- to the two step
> approach -- Wheezy now and upgrade to Jessie six months later more or
> less.  Perhaps when I get around to those installations there may be a
> further RC release of Jessie?

I am not really sure precisely what you are asking.  But I think from
the questions I will answer this way.

If you have compatible hardware I would install Wheezy today and then
immediately upgrade to Jessie.

The installer is always one of the last things to finish before
release.  It generally needs to be one of the last things because it
is reacting to changes in the release.  Therefore the typical thing is
to use the previous installer which is stable and well tested for the
installation and then upgrade.  Usually when we do this we don't
install a desktop.  We install a bare bones system and then upgrade
and then install the heavy bits of a desktop in the new system.

But that plan only works if the new system is old enough to be
supported by the previous installer's kernel.  If it is then great.
If it isn't then the older kernel not supporting newer hardware will
push you into some trouble.  In that case go ahead and try the new
installer.

Remember that there isn't anything very magic about the installer.  It
is just there to bootstrap your system.  All you need to do is to get
to the point that you can log into the new hardware.  And then the
tricky part may be getting networking.  Because often newer network
cards need the newest kernel drivers.  Once you can log in with
network access then you can install the rest of the system.

Having said that you might just want to go ahead and test the new
Jessie installer.  Can't hurt.  It will either work (install
successfully) or it won't.  Either way you will have learned something
and can plan for it.  If it fails then please make an installation
report with the details of the problems.

Just my 2 cents...  There are many ways to do it.

Bob


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> In the next month or so I will have to do a clean OS installation in
> two desktops. Jessie is now frozen (Debian's contribution to retarding
> global warming?); and there are apparently fewer RC bugs at this point
> after the freeze than there were at the same point in time after the
> freezing of previous releases.
> 
> I see that RC1 of Jessie is now available.  I would consequently
> appreciate opinions as to whether Jessie is now or will be by mid
> April sufficiently stable for such installations, or should I install
> Wheezy instead and upgrade to Jessie when it is officially declared
> stable?
> 
> I would much prefer the one step approach -- install Jessie within two
> months and live with non RC bugs for a while -- to the two step
> approach -- Wheezy now and upgrade to Jessie six months later more or
> less.  Perhaps when I get around to those installations there may be a
> further RC release of Jessie?

If its any assurance, the Wheezy install on this system began its life
as an RC1 dual boot with the Primary OS at the time -- Fedora 12.  I
never had any issues with the RC1 or the later releases including
Stable. Debian is VERY conservative with their release designations.

B


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150304230244.15f52...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?

[Bob Bernstein]

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 12:33:05PM +0700, Ken Heard wrote:

> I would much prefer the one step approach -- install Jessie within 
> two months and live with non RC bugs for a while -- to the two 
> step approach -- Wheezy now and upgrade to Jessie six months later 
> more or less.

What's inherently better about the one step? I can't recall the last 
time Debian threw me a major curve ball doing a version upgrade. 

OTOH, it's a great question and I'd like to hear about the new 
toddler in the family too!

-- 
Bob Bernstein

 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150305065025.ga12...@sixtiessurvivor.org