Re: Using unstable for certain packages
Hello Kevin, Excerpt from Kevin Chadwick: -- -- >> libreoffice | 1:4.0.2~rc2-2 | experimental | source, amd64, >> armel, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386 >> >> And yes, 4.0.x will also be in wheezy-backports when it's time for that. >> Using it from "unstable" is bad, because it'll also give you a loads >> of libs not in wheezy which might easily end up pullling a new libc6 etc. > > You can install it very easily as a separately verifiable .deb package > (actually many but the wildcards bring it to about 4 commands). Kevin, it seems you do not know that Rene actually knows that. As he is the libreoffice debian maintainer. ...and actually does a great job at that! Thank you Rene. -- Regards, Thilo 4096R/0xC70B1A8F 721B 1BA0 095C 1ABA 3FC6 7C18 89A4 A2A0 C70B 1A8F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/kkhn4q$smj$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:54:17 +0200 Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:47:50AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > > Personally I like the about two-year stable release schedule. It is > > > long enough > > > > I appreciate knowing that our setup will not break due to this but > > also compile and download various packages like libreoffice and > > xfce-4.10. > > > > Now I would not expect libreoffice to be packaged but xfce-4.10 had a > > ?? > I meant that I would not expect libreoffice 4 in stable but xfce-4.10 would seem sane. > $ rmadison libreoffice > libreoffice | 1:3.3.2-2~bpo60+1 | squeeze-backports | source > libreoffice | 1:3.3.3-4~bpo60+1 | squeeze-backports | source, ia64, > kfreebsd-amd64 > libreoffice | 1:3.4.3-3~bpo60+1 | squeeze-backports | source > libreoffice | 1:3.5.4-7~bpo60+1 | squeeze-backports | source, sparc > libreoffice | 1:3.5.4+dfsg-3~bpo60+2 | squeeze-backports | source, amd64, > armel, i386, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390 > libreoffice | 1:3.5.4+dfsg-4 | wheezy| source, amd64, > armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, > powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc > libreoffice | 1:3.5.4+dfsg-4 | sid | source, mips, > sparc > libreoffice | 1:3.5.4+dfsg2-1| sid | source, amd64, > armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mipsel, powerpc, > s390, s390x > libreoffice | 1:3.6.5-1 | experimental | source, s390, > s390x > libreoffice | 1:4.0.2~rc1-1 | experimental | source, powerpc > libreoffice | 1:4.0.2~rc2-2 | experimental | source, amd64, > armel, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386 > > And yes, 4.0.x will also be in wheezy-backports when it's time for that. > Using it from "unstable" is bad, because it'll also give you a loads > of libs not in wheezy which might easily end up pullling a new libc6 etc. You can install it very easily as a separately verifiable .deb package (actually many but the wildcards bring it to about 4 commands). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/538982.74008...@smtp129.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:47:50AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > Personally I like the about two-year stable release schedule. It is > > long enough > > I appreciate knowing that our setup will not break due to this but > also compile and download various packages like libreoffice and > xfce-4.10. > > Now I would not expect libreoffice to be packaged but xfce-4.10 had a ?? $ rmadison libreoffice libreoffice | 1:3.3.2-2~bpo60+1 | squeeze-backports | source libreoffice | 1:3.3.3-4~bpo60+1 | squeeze-backports | source, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64 libreoffice | 1:3.4.3-3~bpo60+1 | squeeze-backports | source libreoffice | 1:3.5.4-7~bpo60+1 | squeeze-backports | source, sparc libreoffice | 1:3.5.4+dfsg-3~bpo60+2 | squeeze-backports | source, amd64, armel, i386, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390 libreoffice | 1:3.5.4+dfsg-4 | wheezy| source, amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc libreoffice | 1:3.5.4+dfsg-4 | sid | source, mips, sparc libreoffice | 1:3.5.4+dfsg2-1| sid | source, amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x libreoffice | 1:3.6.5-1 | experimental | source, s390, s390x libreoffice | 1:4.0.2~rc1-1 | experimental | source, powerpc libreoffice | 1:4.0.2~rc2-2 | experimental | source, amd64, armel, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386 And yes, 4.0.x will also be in wheezy-backports when it's time for that. Using it from "unstable" is bad, because it'll also give you a loads of libs not in wheezy which might easily end up pullling a new libc6 etc. Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130415085417.gj2...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
> Personally I like the about two-year stable release schedule. It is > long enough I appreciate knowing that our setup will not break due to this but also compile and download various packages like libreoffice and xfce-4.10. Now I would not expect libreoffice to be packaged but xfce-4.10 had a year or two year testing cycle before release and so I see it as perhaps one of very few exceptions. OTOH I have just run into a glib(gio) segmentation fault in debian 6 likely due to mime.cache file corruption in .local, certainly due to that file in any case. Quite Ironic that xfce-4.10 is more stable thanan included package which it is built on ;-). Perhaps it was caused by the mix of old and new code but then I suppose that glib bug would have been fixed. In any case, no problem just thought it was worth consideration as a particular case. I am probably going to drop the xfce4-panel from our plans now anyway. Nothing to do with xfce but glib taking everything down including the panel and synaptic for what should be a non issue as it is a file that could just be deleted is simply unacceptable to me when there are rock solid alternatives. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/719268.17399...@smtp150.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
Chris Bannister wrote: > Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > Incidentally. I do wonder if debian stable should accelerate some > > packages which follow a more stable dev cycle like xfce-4.10 where it > > has already been well tested. > > Won't happen. That is what Debian Backports is for. > IMHO it is not related to the development cycle of the software, but how > well the software actually integrates within the Debian system. What > criterion allows a package to "accelerate" as opposed to another? > Upstream development habits? Is GNOME upstream better than say mplayer > upstream? Who decides? Doesn't sound very workable, or even fair. Agreed to all. When people think they want something that is rolling newer then they probably should use Unstable. Since that gives them the upstream versions packaged as quickly as practical for Debian. (Except like now when we are in a freeze before release.) But then of course Unstable breaks and we say that it isn't suitable for a production system due to those issues. If they need stability then they should use Stable. Of course these two directions are different directions and people want to ping-pong between them. And so people want to improve the process. There people working to change the way Debian releases in order to make something that is in between. Here is one: http://joeyh.name/code/debian/cut/ http://cut.debian.net/ This gets discussed periodically. One recent discussion is here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/01/threads.html#00082 But we are in a freeze for release. So really if anything is going to happen the first thing that needs to happen is Wheezy needs to release. And then, after the release, then this needs to be discussed as an improvement. It won't do anything but frustrate people until then since nothing can be done until then. Personally I like the about two-year stable release schedule. It is long enough that I don't thrash around constantly chasing changing projects. It is short enough that I haven't forgotten how to upgrade from the last one when the new one is due. I don't think the CUT would work very well for production systems because it would mean at unknown times suddenly needing to react to upstream changes. That would cause me thrash. Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 06:49:46PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > Incidentally. I do wonder if debian stable should accelerate some > packages which follow a more stable dev cycle like xfce-4.10 where it > has already been well tested. Won't happen. That is what Debian Backports is for. IMHO it is not related to the development cycle of the software, but how well the software actually integrates within the Debian system. What criterion allows a package to "accelerate" as opposed to another? Upstream development habits? Is GNOME upstream better than say mplayer upstream? Who decides? Doesn't sound very workable, or even fair. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130414132946.GC17420@tal
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
> Then again, if you build from source, you'll lose the automatic upgrade > feature provided by apt/aptitude. > > Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong. I believe so. There are some debian source building tools and mepis archives are usable perhaps best with pinning. I plan to experiment with the latter but have no experience of it. I pinned experimental debians firefox but it broke after a few updates. I expect mepis repos to actually be more workable as they use the stable base and bild new packages. Incidentally. I do wonder if debian stable should accelerate some packages which follow a more stable dev cycle like xfce-4.10 where it has already been well tested. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/701928.15807...@smtp112.mail.ird.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Using unstable for certain packages
> I do not mean building from source using configure & make, but creating > a debian package using source debian package from unstable with tools > like dpkg-buildpackage or uupdate. There's a handy guide to that (apart from the uupdate bit) at http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_porting_a_package_to_the_stable_system -- Cheers, Clive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130413115929.GA7336@rimmer.localdomain
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
> Then again, if you build from source, you'll lose the automatic upgrade > feature provided by apt/aptitude. > > Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong. > > Thanks. > And if you take a package from unstable than you install the dependencies from unstable as well. And having automatic updates from unstable is definitely not a good idea - for example some packages can even conflict with currently installed ones.. If one have decided to take a package from unstable than he probably needs some special features of the software and can track the new upstream releases. I do not mean building from source using configure & make, but creating a debian package using source debian package from unstable with tools like dpkg-buildpackage or uupdate. Regards, Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51680dfe.3040...@biotec.tu-dresden.de
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
On Apr 12, 2013 3:29 PM, "Alex Mestiashvili" wrote: > > On 04/12/2013 02:16 PM, Tom Browder wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Alex Mestiashvili > > wrote: > >> On 04/12/2013 01:33 PM, Tom Browder wrote: > >>> Is it possible to fine tune the package sources so as to use unstable > >>> only for certain packages? > > ... > >> You can try it, but in most cases it is not a good idea. > >> > >> Most of the packages have dependencies which are not available in stable > >> or testing and if you try to get all of them, than after some time your > >> system will be a mix of unstable and stable/testing > >> > >> I suggest to get the source packages instead and rebuild them for your > >> environment. > > > > Sounds like good advice, Alex--a happy medium between ad hoc local > > updates and a probably more controlled build and local install. I > > shall look into how to do that. > > > > Best regards, > > > > -Tom > > > > > Which package do you need from the unstable ? > I can try to create a short workflow for it. > > a good place to start with debian packages is the New Maintainer Guide: > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ > > Regards, > Alex > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5167fdf8.3030...@biotec.tu-dresden.de > Then again, if you build from source, you'll lose the automatic upgrade feature provided by apt/aptitude. Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
>>> I suggest to get the source packages instead and rebuild them for your >>> environment. Check first to see if it is in backports. If it is there that will save having to build it from source. Not everything is there, but if it is, it will save time. Regards, /Lars -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/516805f0.2030...@gmail.com
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
On 04/12/2013 02:16 PM, Tom Browder wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Alex Mestiashvili > wrote: >> On 04/12/2013 01:33 PM, Tom Browder wrote: >>> Is it possible to fine tune the package sources so as to use unstable >>> only for certain packages? > ... >> You can try it, but in most cases it is not a good idea. >> >> Most of the packages have dependencies which are not available in stable >> or testing and if you try to get all of them, than after some time your >> system will be a mix of unstable and stable/testing >> >> I suggest to get the source packages instead and rebuild them for your >> environment. > > Sounds like good advice, Alex--a happy medium between ad hoc local > updates and a probably more controlled build and local install. I > shall look into how to do that. > > Best regards, > > -Tom > > Which package do you need from the unstable ? I can try to create a short workflow for it. a good place to start with debian packages is the New Maintainer Guide: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ Regards, Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5167fdf8.3030...@biotec.tu-dresden.de
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Alex Mestiashvili wrote: > On 04/12/2013 01:33 PM, Tom Browder wrote: >> Is it possible to fine tune the package sources so as to use unstable >> only for certain packages? ... > You can try it, but in most cases it is not a good idea. > > Most of the packages have dependencies which are not available in stable > or testing and if you try to get all of them, than after some time your > system will be a mix of unstable and stable/testing > > I suggest to get the source packages instead and rebuild them for your > environment. Sounds like good advice, Alex--a happy medium between ad hoc local updates and a probably more controlled build and local install. I shall look into how to do that. Best regards, -Tom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFMGiz9bXVd9LbCHCvj+b1PnnU=-1y8u7lpk6wnnkf0aqsz...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
On 04/12/2013 01:33 PM, Tom Browder wrote: > Is it possible to fine tune the package sources so as to use unstable > only for certain packages? > > Best regards, > > -Tom > > You can try it, but in most cases it is not a good idea. Most of the packages have dependencies which are not available in stable or testing and if you try to get all of them, than after some time your system will be a mix of unstable and stable/testing I suggest to get the source packages instead and rebuild them for your environment. Often you'll need to change some versions of deps in debian/control file and do some little hacks, but in general it works much better than installing debs from unstable. Regards, Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5167f732.3000...@biotec.tu-dresden.de
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:38 AM, "Morel Bérenger" wrote: > Le Ven 12 avril 2013 13:33, Tom Browder a écrit : >> Is it possible to fine tune the package sources so as to use unstable >> only for certain packages? ... > The technique is named apt-pinning, you can find some documentation here: > http://wiki.debian.org/AptPreferences On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Lars Noodén wrote: ... > If the package you want is not in backports, then you could try apt-pinning: > http://wiki.debian.org/AptPreferences Thanks, Morel and Lars! Best regards, -Tom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cafmgiz_gmo_mjxj3vm5bwccp7xklcpx8ql1qbyvq4osjyiz...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
On 4/12/13 2:33 PM, Tom Browder wrote: > Is it possible to fine tune the package sources so as to use unstable > only for certain packages? > > Best regards, > > -Tom If the package you want is not in backports, then you could try apt-pinning: http://wiki.debian.org/AptPreferences Regards, /Lars -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5167f253.9040...@gmail.com
Re: Using unstable for certain packages
Le Ven 12 avril 2013 13:33, Tom Browder a écrit : > Is it possible to fine tune the package sources so as to use unstable > only for certain packages? > > Best regards, Sure. The technique is named apt-pinning, you can find some documentation here: http://wiki.debian.org/AptPreferences -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e34d488100b8023f1c750399a13afeb5.squir...@www.sud-ouest.org
Using unstable for certain packages
Is it possible to fine tune the package sources so as to use unstable only for certain packages? Best regards, -Tom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFMGiz_v+WfSymepzCsuWaA=_=uy3X_4apZ=trhpbzu0u+6...@mail.gmail.com
