Re: Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable
John Hasler wrote: > Sven writes: >> It is of note that "experimental" in itself is not a complete set of >> packages like "unstable" is, it is intended as an addon to "unstable" >> and has to be used in conjunction with it. > It is also of note that Unstable is unstable in that it is constantly > changing, not that it is full of buggy packages. One of the ways in > which it can be unstable is that new versions of packages can be > uploaded to it with out regard to the presence or absence of > dependencies. The latter part is mitigated a bit when source-only uploads are used, as those greatly reduce the impact of an unclean build-environment on the DDs side. But during library transitions "unstable" gets hit with this with the full force, doing "apt dist-upgrade" blindly will see you remove the major parts of your system quite easily. You have to use your brain a bit when using "unstable". Grüße, Sven. -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
Re: Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable
Sven writes: > It is of note that "experimental" in itself is not a complete set of > packages like "unstable" is, it is intended as an addon to "unstable" > and has to be used in conjunction with it. It is also of note that Unstable is unstable in that it is constantly changing, not that it is full of buggy packages. One of the ways in which it can be unstable is that new versions of packages can be uploaded to it with out regard to the presence or absence of dependencies. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable
Kushal Kumaran wrote: > There is an experimental "distribution" that is for trying all kinds of > new and weird things. It is of note that "experimental" in itself is not a complete set of packages like "unstable" is, it is intended as an addon to "unstable" and has to be used in conjunction with it. Grüße, Sven. -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
Re: Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable
rhkra...@gmail.com writes: > Aside: for my own self respect, I want to make some sort of disclaimer here > (with maybe several points): I'm sure that sometimes I post things that do > any of (1) make other people cringe (for one reason or another), (2) make me > look uninformed (or worse), and (3) other causes for embarrassment (to myself > of others). > > I finally realized that the "normal" progression / hierarchy of the Debian > releases is from Unstable to Testing to Stable. > > I never looked it up -- I assume that, like most people, we don't look up > everything but make assumptions based on past experience. I expected that > the > normal progression for Debian releases would be from Testing (trying all / > any > kind of new, possibly weird things), to Unstable (concentrating on things > that > survived some initial testing and now maybe being released to a select group > for some real pounding en route to Stable. > There is an experimental "distribution" that is for trying all kinds of new and weird things. > (I've never used anything other than stable releases, so my misunderstanding > hasn't had any real world effect on my systems, but I have been confused at > times, and suspect that maybe one other person out there may have similarly > been confused.) You might find https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.release-lifecycle.html informative. -- regards, kushal
Re: Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable
Hi there, youre are far from an idiot. All this stuff like stable etc/ etc. rests on conventions. You wrote you never insxtalled something other than stable. So: do not worry why should you worry about this shit. In a philosophical way your point of view if you have any developed now on this topic can be argumented as well I think. have a nice sunday, steef rhkra...@gmail.com schreef op 13-04-20 om 15:29: Aside: for my own self respect, I want to make some sort of disclaimer here (with maybe several points): I'm sure that sometimes I post things that do any of (1) make other people cringe (for one reason or another), (2) make me look uninformed (or worse), and (3) other causes for embarrassment (to myself of others). I finally realized that the "normal" progression / hierarchy of the Debian releases is from Unstable to Testing to Stable. I never looked it up -- I assume that, like most people, we don't look up everything but make assumptions based on past experience. I expected that the normal progression for Debian releases would be from Testing (trying all / any kind of new, possibly weird things), to Unstable (concentrating on things that survived some initial testing and now maybe being released to a select group for some real pounding en route to Stable. (I've never used anything other than stable releases, so my misunderstanding hasn't had any real world effect on my systems, but I have been confused at times, and suspect that maybe one other person out there may have similarly been confused.)
Re: Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable
On Lu, 13 apr 20, 09:29:50, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > Aside: for my own self respect, I want to make some sort of disclaimer here > (with maybe several points): I'm sure that sometimes I post things that do > any of (1) make other people cringe (for one reason or another), (2) make me > look uninformed (or worse), and (3) other causes for embarrassment (to myself > of others). > > I finally realized that the "normal" progression / hierarchy of the Debian > releases is from Unstable to Testing to Stable. Correct. If you were to examine the archive with an ftp client you could notice that oldstable is actually a symlink to stretch, stable is a symlink to buster and testing is a symlink to bullseye (the codename for the next release). Unstable always points to sid. > I never looked it up -- I assume that, like most people, we don't look up > everything but make assumptions based on past experience. I expected that > the > normal progression for Debian releases would be from Testing (trying > all / any kind of new, possibly weird things), That would be experimental (also known as rc-buggy). > to Unstable (concentrating on things that survived some initial > testing and now maybe being released to a select group for some real > pounding en route to Stable. Trivia: Long ago Debian only had stable and unstable, testing was introduced later. Basically packages that are meant for the next stable release are uploaded to unstable. If they satisfy certain criteria established by the Release Team (no new RC bugs, tests and/or age in unstable, etc.) they migrate to testing automatically. In order to prepare for release, testing is "frozen", i.e. the automatic migration is disabled and only targeted fixes for RC bugs are manually approved by the Release Team[1]. When the Release Team considers everything is "ready"[2] the release happens. The next release starts as copy of stable and automatic migration from unstable is enabled again. [1] This is a simplification, in practice the freeze has different stages with different rules. [2] RC bug count is low enough, the distribution overall is consistent, etc. Hope this explains, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Unstable ==> Testing ==> Stable
Aside: for my own self respect, I want to make some sort of disclaimer here (with maybe several points): I'm sure that sometimes I post things that do any of (1) make other people cringe (for one reason or another), (2) make me look uninformed (or worse), and (3) other causes for embarrassment (to myself of others). I finally realized that the "normal" progression / hierarchy of the Debian releases is from Unstable to Testing to Stable. I never looked it up -- I assume that, like most people, we don't look up everything but make assumptions based on past experience. I expected that the normal progression for Debian releases would be from Testing (trying all / any kind of new, possibly weird things), to Unstable (concentrating on things that survived some initial testing and now maybe being released to a select group for some real pounding en route to Stable. (I've never used anything other than stable releases, so my misunderstanding hasn't had any real world effect on my systems, but I have been confused at times, and suspect that maybe one other person out there may have similarly been confused.)
Re: testing & stable: vanished packages?
Antony Gelberg wrote: [...] > apcalc isn't in testing as it has an RC bug (read: serious problem). > > http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=apcalc Thanks for the info! This webpage (entitled "Why is package X not in testing yet?") seems very useful. But, why then isn't the older package (which is part of the stable distribution) kept for the testing distribution? As I said, it _appears_ to be working on my etch box. Is it known to be seriously broken on the etch platform? Or, does this phrase in the webpage above apcalc has no old version in testing (trying to add, not update) mean that the package maintainer intends to re-introduce the older package while the bug in the newer is being fixed? It seems that I don't quite understand the process in which packages are updated. Regards, Ryo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing & stable: vanished packages?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 02:14:16AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > When sarge became the stable distribution, I read > that initially the stable and testing distributions > are the same but that packages in the testing keep > upgraded, if I remember correctly. If that's so, > some packages in the testing will get frequently > upgraded and others will get upgraded less frequent > or not at all, but there's no reason why a package > must be removed, is there? (unless there's a security > problem or some such serious problem.) Sure, there is. For instance, what if package foo depends on package bar, and bar has a release-critical bug and won't ever be included in Testing until the bug is fixed? Including packages from Stable will eventually stop working, I suspect. All it takes is one major change in an important library. -- Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you attempt to fix something that isn't broken, it will be. -Bruce Tognazzini -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing & stable: vanished packages?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm wondering why some packages aren't available for > the testing distribution. For example, I wanted to > install apcalc (in the math section) but learned that > it's available only for the unstable and stable > distributions, not for the testing. (I searched > at http://www.debian.org .) > I was just starting to wonder the same thing. After trying unsucessfully to install 'testing' from scratch I found that the only reliable way is to install 'stable' first and then upgrade. More recently I found, like you, that some packages are not available in 'testing' and I suspect that this is why some of my installs didn't work. For the sake of getting things to work I have started including both 'stable' and 'testing' in my /etc/apt/sources.list file, but I'm sure this isn't the right thing to do. ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
testing & stable: vanished packages?
Hi all, I'm wondering why some packages aren't available for the testing distribution. For example, I wanted to install apcalc (in the math section) but learned that it's available only for the unstable and stable distributions, not for the testing. (I searched at http://www.debian.org .) When sarge became the stable distribution, I read that initially the stable and testing distributions are the same but that packages in the testing keep upgraded, if I remember correctly. If that's so, some packages in the testing will get frequently upgraded and others will get upgraded less frequent or not at all, but there's no reason why a package must be removed, is there? (unless there's a security problem or some such serious problem.) I downloaded .deb files in the stable distribution of apcalc and installed them using "dpkg -i". I'm not very unhappy with that. But, I remain puzzled. Cheers, Ryo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sarge testing->stable and USB mouse issue
Jon Dowland wrote: On 6/9/05, Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Right - well indeed when I got in my PS2 mouse wasn't working in X. No events on /dev/input/mice. psmouse module loaded, '0' modules depending on it. rmmod psmouse; modprobe psmouse resulted in the following on dmesg: input: ImPS/2 Logitech Wheel Mouse on isa0060/serio1 This line did occur in dmesg prior to the modprobe, i.e. as part of the boot-up. It occurs after a similar message for the keyboard (which works fine); but before the USB stuff loads. I have an 'aiptek hyperpen' clone graphics tablet (USB) which does work. Booting my machine _without_ the tablet plugged in prevents this issue. This isn't a relevant fix for my work computer, but luckily that one has stopped complaining as of late. I will investigate further at a later time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sarge testing->stable and USB mouse issue
On 6/9/05, Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Footnote: I may be having the same problem at home, too (similarly > sarge 2.6.11, albeit PS2 mouse this time). However I can't confirm > that, I haven't used that machine much recently and I think the mouse > actually was physically unplugged at one point.] Right - well indeed when I got in my PS2 mouse wasn't working in X. No events on /dev/input/mice. psmouse module loaded, '0' modules depending on it. rmmod psmouse; modprobe psmouse resulted in the following on dmesg: input: ImPS/2 Logitech Wheel Mouse on isa0060/serio1 This line did occur in dmesg prior to the modprobe, i.e. as part of the boot-up. It occurs after a similar message for the keyboard (which works fine); but before the USB stuff loads. I have an 'aiptek hyperpen' clone graphics tablet (USB) which does work. This is a 2.6.11 kernel. Any tips/advice would be greatly appreciated. -- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/
sarge testing->stable and USB mouse issue
Hi all - it seems a lot of people are having trouble with their mice after the sarge move from testing to stable. I am also having a problem which seems to be different from those who have already posted on d-u and I can't find any relevant bugs against xserver-xfree86. When I get into work in the morning, my mouse does not appear to be working. Sometimes I have an X session open which I was using the previous day, mouse and all; other times I am logging in afresh from gdm. I cannot find any messages hinting at the cause in /var/log/* or dmesg. Removing the mouse and plugging it in again causes the hotplug system to register the mouse afresh: usb 4-1: USB disconnect, address 5 usb 4-2: new low speed USB device using uhci_hcd and address 6 input: USB HID v1.10 Mouse [Logitech Optical USB Mouse] on usb-:00:1d.3-2 X is configured to use /dev/input/mice. I am using a 2.6.11 kernel. When I come in tomorrow, assuming my mouse isn't working in the morning, I will confirm a) that the no-mouse-in-X problem is in fact no-events-from-mouse by hexdumping /dev/input/m* b) that there is a mouse entry (still) in the /proc/bus/usb listings (since the dmesg output indicates that a disconnect was registered, that sort-of suggests to me the mouse is still present as far as the kernel is concerned) [Footnote: I may be having the same problem at home, too (similarly sarge 2.6.11, albeit PS2 mouse this time). However I can't confirm that, I haven't used that machine much recently and I think the mouse actually was physically unplugged at one point.] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help in sarge testing->stable
Alberto Bert wrote: Hi, I'm running sarge, but I would like to keep using the testing distribution, also after the release. Do you think there will be any kind of problem in the transition between sarge and the new testing? I mean, should I just upgrade my system and everything should work, or there are some important changes I have to deal with? sorry if the question was stupid. thanks Alberto The question is very common and there is nothing stupid about it. May I point you to the FAQ I have written in the past and hosted at http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/debian_choosing_distribution.html In particular you might be interested in Q13 - What happens when a new release is made? Q15 - I am currently tracking testing (sarge). What happens when a release is made? Will I still be tracking testing or will my machine be running the new stable distribution? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help in sarge testing->stable
On (18/05/05 10:33), Alberto Bert wrote: > I'm running sarge, but I would like to keep using the testing distribution, > also after the release. Do you think there will be any kind of > problem in the transition between sarge and the new testing? I mean, > should I just upgrade my system and everything should work, or there are > some important changes I have to deal with? As long as you have 'testing' instead of 'sarge' in your sources.list everything should work fine. I suspect that since sarge is now frozen, there will be a build up of packages in 'sid' awaiting transition to testing once 'etch' become testing. So immediately after sarge goes stable you will experience a large upgrade of packages. I suggest you have 'apt-listbugs' installed prior to that so that you can make sure that nothing vital is going to break. Regards Clive -- www.clivemenzies.co.uk ... ...strategies for business -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
help in sarge testing->stable
Hi, I'm running sarge, but I would like to keep using the testing distribution, also after the release. Do you think there will be any kind of problem in the transition between sarge and the new testing? I mean, should I just upgrade my system and everything should work, or there are some important changes I have to deal with? sorry if the question was stupid. thanks Alberto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get testing & stable questions
James W. Thompson, II wrote: > can I get only certain packages from testing while leaving the rest of > my system on the stable chain without messing too much stuff up and do > it automatically through apt-get? Depends on what you get, though it will be very easy to make a mess of your system. I would recommend checking backports.org for a backport instead. Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
apt-get testing & stable questions
I have what might be a stupid question... can I get only certain packages from testing while leaving the rest of my system on the stable chain without messing too much stuff up and do it automatically through apt-get? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Testing->Stable?
Colin Watson wrote: On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 02:00:05PM -0700, Justin Souter, InkNoise wrote: Is there any information on when the current testing release will become the stable release? Follow the debian-devel-announce mailing list for relevant announcements. Naturally, there is the classic response: "When it's ready." One of the truly nice things about Debian. A release won't be rushed out the door to satisfy some political or financial demand. -Roberto Sanchez signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Testing->Stable?
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 02:00:05PM -0700, Justin Souter, InkNoise wrote: > Is there any information on when the current testing release will become the > stable release? Follow the debian-devel-announce mailing list for relevant announcements. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Testing->Stable?
"Justin Souter, InkNoise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is there any information on when the current testing release will become the > stable release? I'm just looking for when PHP 4.3.x will be available in a > stable release. Thanks. Some time this summer, most likely... -- You win again, gravity! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Testing->Stable?
On Friday 07 May 2004 05:00 pm, Justin Souter, InkNoise wrote: > Is there any information on when the current testing release will become > the stable release? I'm just looking for when PHP 4.3.x will be available > in a stable release. Thanks. When it's ready. Hopefully sometime before never. -- Michael McIntyre Silvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621 http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Testing->Stable?
Is there any information on when the current testing release will become the stable release? I'm just looking for when PHP 4.3.x will be available in a stable release. Thanks. - - - - - - - - - - Justin Souter InkNoise Personal Web Publishing 818-784-8778 http://www.inknoise.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Postfix prolem (Is it ok to mix testing/stable apt sources?)
> I have both testing and stable sources in my sources.list. I think I > saw once on this list that it is OK and such mix is supported. I would hope it is, since testing does not yet seem to contain a complete distribution and having both "stable" and "testing" simultaneously seems to be the only way to get a "testing" box working well. > I've just run dselect and it upgraded postfix with package from > stable. However it doesn't want to install properly - on installation > it runs newaliases which dies with: > >postalias: fatal: open database /etc/aliases.db: Invalid argument I've had this problem too, the version that "apt-get upgrade" fetched for me was "0.0.19991231pl11-1", dated 1-Dec-2000. Why such an old package has only now made it into testing I'm not sure. In a google search I just did, the error message quoted above crops up quite often on postfix-related lists, suggesting it's a common problem. The solution cited always seems to be to run "newaliases", which doesn't help us here because that command just gives the above error again. I haven't seen an explanation for *why* the message appears, nor why running "newaliases" should fix it. The following changelog.Debian.gz entry seems the only one related to this problem: = postfix (0.0.19991231pl11-1) stable; urgency=high * Upstream fixes (see /usr/share/doc/postfix/RELEASE_NOTES), * including: - Postfix must no longer use DB 1.85 compatibility mode, because that mode loses the file lock while building a table, so that table lookups fail and MAIL IS LOST. Closes: #78812. [...] -- LaMont Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:48:13 -0700 = This in turn is referring to this entry from the changelog.gz: = 20001026 Horror: postmap and postalias (newaliases) silently lose the file lock while building a lookup table with Berkeley DB 2.x and later on Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, and UNIXWARE. The result is that table lookups fail while the table is being built, so that mail is lost. In order to avoid this misbehavior one has to use an undocumented feature that is NOT available with the DB1.85 compatibility interface. Therefore, Postfix now supports three Berkeley DB programming interfaces of increasing complexity. File: util/dict_db.c. = Would the lack of DB 1.85 compatibility be a problem on machines that use DB 2.x, and more recently DB 3.x, as the testing tree now seems to do? Could it be that the recent addition of DB 3.x to the mix (my box now has libdb2 2.7.7-7 and libdb3 3.2.9-5) is combining here to cause this problem? Any help on this confusing state of affairs is appreciated. Please Bcc: me on replies as my subscription to the list doesn't seem to be working. -- \ `\ _o__) BIGNOSE
Postfix prolem (Is it ok to mix testing/stable apt sources?)
Hi, I have both testing and stable sources in my sources.list. I think I saw once on this list that it is OK and such mix is supported. I've just run dselect and it upgraded postfix with package from stable. However it doesn't want to install properly - on installation it runs newaliases which dies with: postalias: fatal: open database /etc/aliases.db: Invalid argument Downgrading to testing version of postfix seems to fix problem. So should I post bug report against postfix or I should not bother to do it because mix of stable/testing is not supported? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)| | GnuPG 1024D/323BDEE6 D7F7 561E 4C1D 8A15 8E80 E4AE BE1A 53EB 323B DEE6 | | AGAVA Software Company (http://www.agava.com/) | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
