Slashdot Mirror

Pretty much any GNU/Linux distribution over a certain popularity/size, modifies the software you mention.

Debian's modifications for Mozilla Firefox 1.0.4 are 986 KB uncompressed; Linux 2.6.8: 3.5 MB uncompressed; Openoffice.org 1.1.3: 15 MB uncompressed(!).

One of the best reasons being able to modify your software is good is to stave off obscelescence. Every time a new version of Windows comes out, thousands of programs break. Now I'm not saying that those programs aren't poorly coded: but if the original developer has gone out of business, or wants to sell the upgrade, or just doesn't care, then the end user is screwed.

So a business just writes upgrades (or migration if an upgrade is impossible) off as a running cost--but when a (good) game becomes impossible to run then IMO, the world has lost a piece of art. With open source software, this is pretty much impossible.

Pretty much any GNU/Linux distribution over a certain popularity/size, modifies the software you mention.

Debian's modifications for Mozilla Firefox 1.0.4 are 986 KB uncompressed; Linux 2.6.8: 3.5 MB uncompressed; Openoffice.org 1.1.3: 15 MB uncompressed(!).

One of the best reasons being able to modify your software is good is to stave off obscelescence. Every time a new version of Windows comes out, thousands of programs break. Now I'm not saying that those programs aren't poorly coded: but if the original developer has gone out of business, or wants to sell the upgrade, or just doesn't care, then the end user is screwed.

So a business just writes upgrades (or migration if an upgrade is impossible) off as a running cost--but when a (good) game becomes impossible to run then IMO, the world has lost a piece of art. With open source software, this is pretty much impossible.

Pretty much any GNU/Linux distribution over a certain popularity/size, modifies the software you mention.

Debian's modifications for Mozilla Firefox 1.0.4 are 986 KB uncompressed; Linux 2.6.8: 3.5 MB uncompressed; Openoffice.org 1.1.3: 15 MB uncompressed(!).

One of the best reasons being able to modify your software is good is to stave off obscelescence. Every time a new version of Windows comes out, thousands of programs break. Now I'm not saying that those programs aren't poorly coded: but if the original developer has gone out of business, or wants to sell the upgrade, or just doesn't care, then the end user is screwed.

So a business just writes upgrades (or migration if an upgrade is impossible) off as a running cost--but when a (good) game becomes impossible to run then IMO, the world has lost a piece of art. With open source software, this is pretty much impossible.

I just thought I'd ask someone since I didn't see any obvious answer in the release notes. Thanks for the info.

But in addition to these platforms, debian supports almost that many more. SPARC, m68k, ARM, MIPs, etc. See http://www.debian.org/ports/

RedHat may support the more popular CPU platforms, but Debian tries to give equal weight to pretty much anything with a CPU and MMU :)

"Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting"
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005 /03/msg00012.html

The proposal currently being discussed is that we shall continue to support architectures apart from x86, x86_64, ia64 and ppc, but at release time, problems regarding second class citizen architecture support will no longer be allowed to hold back releasing a stable distribution for the core four.

You want to see the Debian ports page for more information on this. There is a port for PA-RISC, but I do not know if Sarge is available for it (yet). Good luck.

You want to see the Debian ports page for more information on this. There is a port for PA-RISC, but I do not know if Sarge is available for it (yet). Good luck.

Other problems? Sarge installed a generic 386 kernel I think, instead of one for my AMD cpu. Now I have to figure out how to upgrade a kernel even though I planned to stick with the stable one Sarge gave me, 2.6.8-2-386.

Wishes? Yast on Debian. So I can more easily configure OpenLDAP. Tried without Yast, didn't work.

KDE still seems to be there to me.

http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages .pl?keywords=kde&searchon=names&version=all&releas e=all

Have you read anything here?

http://www.debian.org/doc/

Covers most things, I find

But... honestly... do real geeks need a seperate section on installing each and every app they might need? Apt-get "just works" for me...

Okay, I *know* I'm feeding the troll, but whatever, I just can't refrain myself...

> How to kill Debian in five ("Three, sir!") easy steps:

How to troll about Debian in three easy steps :

>* Take freaking forever to freeze a release.

* Ignore the fact that Testing was usable (and used) all along. Hell, I've got a *dozen* of servers running Testing since a few years, and you know what, I've had very few problems with them (in contrast, the Mandrake servers kept being broken, especially on upgrades)

>* Take freaking forever to ship after freezing.

* Inflate everything for FUD purposes and call "barely a month", "freaking forever"

>* Ship a broken upgrade even after all the damn testing.

* In the same spirit, call "some problems if you didn't RTFM", "a broken upgrade"

> Seriously, WTF? I like Debian, but those folks need to get their heads out of their asses.

* Insult the FOSS developers that bring you the software you run for free

> They need to stop wasting time trying to officially support the two dozen or so architectures nobody gives a damn about

* Give stupid advice about how volunteers should spend the time they donate to a project ; also shit on people who happen not to have the same setup as you (if you keep doing this long enough, you eventually morph into an eWeek columnist and proceed to write moronic articles where you explain to "the Linux community" that they need to drop every desktop environment but KDE to compete with Microsoft and Apple)

> stop engaging in wars about whether non-free belongs in Debian

* Clearly show that you don't give a damn about those wacky "Open Source" and "Free Software" concepts, and that you just want more warez, quick !

> and concentrate on releasing something that's reasonably current and also supported by security updates.

* Demonstrate to the world you don't know how to read security.d.o and use the information to backport the fixes into your packages. As an added bonus, show that you're unaware of recent projects

> Oh, and it would be nice if doing an 'apt-get dist-upgrade' didn't break things.

* Finally, make sure everyone understands you didn't look at the release notes for your distro before upgrading, since, as we all know, manuals are for losers

If you closely follow all the steps graciously demonstrated by the parent poster, your Debian trolls will have the most impact. For added points, you could also make some reference to "Debian stale" and/or launch the installer in expert mode, then claim it's difficult to install Debian. There is no limit to the FUD, really.

Okay, I *know* I'm feeding the troll, but whatever, I just can't refrain myself...

> How to kill Debian in five ("Three, sir!") easy steps:

How to troll about Debian in three easy steps :

>* Take freaking forever to freeze a release.

* Ignore the fact that Testing was usable (and used) all along. Hell, I've got a *dozen* of servers running Testing since a few years, and you know what, I've had very few problems with them (in contrast, the Mandrake servers kept being broken, especially on upgrades)

>* Take freaking forever to ship after freezing.

* Inflate everything for FUD purposes and call "barely a month", "freaking forever"

>* Ship a broken upgrade even after all the damn testing.

* In the same spirit, call "some problems if you didn't RTFM", "a broken upgrade"

> Seriously, WTF? I like Debian, but those folks need to get their heads out of their asses.

* Insult the FOSS developers that bring you the software you run for free

> They need to stop wasting time trying to officially support the two dozen or so architectures nobody gives a damn about

* Give stupid advice about how volunteers should spend the time they donate to a project ; also shit on people who happen not to have the same setup as you (if you keep doing this long enough, you eventually morph into an eWeek columnist and proceed to write moronic articles where you explain to "the Linux community" that they need to drop every desktop environment but KDE to compete with Microsoft and Apple)

> stop engaging in wars about whether non-free belongs in Debian

* Clearly show that you don't give a damn about those wacky "Open Source" and "Free Software" concepts, and that you just want more warez, quick !

> and concentrate on releasing something that's reasonably current and also supported by security updates.

* Demonstrate to the world you don't know how to read security.d.o and use the information to backport the fixes into your packages. As an added bonus, show that you're unaware of recent projects

> Oh, and it would be nice if doing an 'apt-get dist-upgrade' didn't break things.

* Finally, make sure everyone understands you didn't look at the release notes for your distro before upgrading, since, as we all know, manuals are for losers

If you closely follow all the steps graciously demonstrated by the parent poster, your Debian trolls will have the most impact. For added points, you could also make some reference to "Debian stale" and/or launch the installer in expert mode, then claim it's difficult to install Debian. There is no limit to the FUD, really.

> Well, the last time I used aptitude I looked at the screen. It was UGLY!!!

For those who are wondering what this software really looks like, here's a screenshot. Note the description area at the bottom can be hidden, leaving all the screen real estate for the package tree (incidentally, that tree display is an excellent idea, as it makes browsing through the packages much more comfortable than a flat view).

> Compared to Aptitude, dselect is a work of art and beauty.

Well, how to put this... you see, I do *not* choose my system administration software on aesthetic qualities, but rather on their efficiency and adequation to the task at hand. Aptitude allows me to easily (1) locate packages (with `/' like in Vi), (2) add or remove them (with `+', `-' or `_' to purge), and (3) review what will be done (including what dependencies will be (de)installed). Plus, it has nifty features like marking dependency packages as being automatically installed, so they'll be removed if all the packages that depend on those are removed. No more cruft on my systems !

> If aptitude has some good features, they REALLY need to graft another front end onto it. REALLY, seriously.

Well, I for one find Aptitude intuitive and efficient enough (more than enough, even). But if you really feel there must be another interface, by all means, fork it. After all, Open Source is *also* about your right to disagree with the upstream authors.

> And, also, once when I was having trouble with an upgrade, I decided to check out aptitude to see just how well it handled dependencies. I ended up hosing my system.

Well, that sounds unlikely. You see, if Aptitude detects your choices of packages breaks other packages' dependencies, it will (depending on the configuration) either (1) revert your choices before proceeding or (2) show you the broken packages (in red) and flatly refuse to proceed with the installation. So, you can't hose your system unless you fool Aptitude with some hackery (using equivs, editing /var/lib/dpkg/available, etc.). Note I'm *not* saying that's what you did. I'd be more inclined to suspect the breakage you encountered was caused by faulty packages, hence it would have been just the same with synaptic or the good old apt-get.

In summary, I'm sorry you had a bad experience with Aptitude. In my case, this software has been a very valuable tool, especially on headless servers where synaptic is not an option. And it's clearly way, *WAY* more intuitive than the dreaded dselect, at least for me. I hope you will have less problems with it next time. Meanwhile, you would maybe like to get out the reportbug(1) program and file a bug at the wishlist level about the colors. If you can suggest more legible colors (keeping in mind that terminals have a limited set of colors available), it could probably help.

It's harder to put something into the public domain, than to release it under a 3BSD, X11 or MIT style license.

The issue of why the public domain is useless is currently being discussed on debian-legal.

I was one of the reports, on a test system I set up. Read more at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 10490

basically admiting that they didn't RTFRN (RN == release notes). If you follow the release notes you are fine. They give you a few instructions and all the commands to use:

http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release -notes/ch-upgrading.en.html

personally I think its kinda gay that these package managers don't always just attempt to update themselves and their depends first. Or warn that new version of the package manager is available and ask to install it first. I think even up2date *gag* warns about that.

They also don't have the resources to making security patches for every package without upgrading to a newer version of said package (i.e. backporting). They really do a phenominal job given their constraints.

I'm not sure what weed you're smoking, but Debian backports ALL of their security fixes from upstream software to the version packaged in stable. Really, consult the Debian Security FAQ for more details.

I'm upgrading all of my boxes from woody to sarge. So far so good. You need to follow the instructions here
Some perspective: It is a giant leap from woody to sarge. Each server I'm upgrading has a purpose, and the application software to support that purpose has taken a big version jump. Of course, you're going to have issues doing that.

You might want to read the release notes before upgrading:

http://www.debian.org/releases/sarge/releasenotes

...which specifically recommend using aptitude rather than apt-get.

For a perl script cum slow perl clone...

Ok, I'm a slow typist, so you'll probably have this info by the time I post it, but anyway...

According to the site's notice: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005 /06/msg00003.html

All you need to do is:
quote: "If you have already installed a system using a 3.1r0 CD/DVD image, you
do not need to reinstall. Instead, simply edit /etc/apt/sources.list,
look for any lines mentioning security.debian.org, change "testing" to
"stable", and remove "# " from the start of the line." end quote.

(Kind of an embarassing thing for them to let slip through, eh?) };-)

You haven't tried to get Java running on Ubuntu, have you?

No, mainly because I use Debian.

I have, however, got Java running _perfectly_ on Debian, and am currently playing Puzzle Pirates. I do feel unclean for using it, though.

21:36 <resiak> install java
21:36 <dpkg> First, read <java licensing>. Still here? If you're in sarge or sid, ask me about <java-package>. If you're in woody, grab java-package manually from http://packages.debian.org/java-package and then ask me about <java-package> for instructions on how to use it. Also, ask me about <java-package howto>
21:36 <resiak> java-package 21:36 <dpkg> somebody said java-package was the new name for mpkg-j2se... err, I mean j2se-package... DAMN IT, CAN'T THEY PICK A NAME?! Anyway, it lets you build a .deb file from Sun's non-free upstream Java distributions. See "man make-jpkg". Cf. "make-kpkg" (from kernel-package).only in sarge and sid currently, but it's a -all package, so it's safe to use it in woody. This packages lives in 'contrib', so make sure you have that in your sources.list.
21:38 <resiak> java-package howto
21:38 <dpkg> http://www.debian-administration.org/?article=142

Go speak to dpkg on freenode. You'll need to /j #debian.

sounds like a dodgy mirror

if you tell bittorrent to download on top of the partial copy you have already it should work out what parts are intact and download the rest for you.

alternatively you may wan't to hold off getting the full dvd images until a certain issue with them is fixed see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005 /06/msg00003.html

p.s. the comment posting delay is getting worse. yesterday it was 15 minuites now it appears to be 30 is this some anti-crapflooding measure or something?

Get it from experimental if you trust it.

The new packages will be uploaded to Unstable soon.

Get it from experimental if you trust it.

The new packages will be uploaded to Unstable soon.

Better just follow the upgrade guide to make sure everything goes OK! (Before you do a simple dist-upgrade...)

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005 /06/msg00003.html

"A bug has been discovered in the 3.1r0 CD/DVD images: new installs from these images will have a commented-out entry in /etc/apt/sources.list for "http://security.debian.org/ testing/updates" rather than an active entry for "http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates", and thus will not get security updates by default. This was due to incorrect Release files on the images.

If you have already installed a system using a 3.1r0 CD/DVD image, you do not need to reinstall. Instead, simply edit /etc/apt/sources.list, look for any lines mentioning security.debian.org, change "testing" to "stable", and remove "# " from the start of the line.

If you installed other than from a CD or DVD (for example, netboot, or booting from floppy and installing the base system from the network), you are not affected by this bug.

New 3.1r0a images will be available shortly to correct this flaw. We apologise for the inconvenience."

• if you do not have aptitude installed, install the one from the Debian 3.0 (codename woody), and install the one from the latest update 3.0r6; you may use the command # apt-get install aptitude
• change /etc/apt/sources.list to point to Debian 3.1 (codename sarge)
• # apt-get update
• # aptitude install aptitude
• if you use doc-base, #aptitude install doc-base
• aptitude -f --with-recommends dist-upgrade

I'm amazed that people don't read the Release Notes even if they are available for all eleven architectures and translated to 14 different languages. The recommended method for upgrade is aptitude not apt-get. It has shown that it has better dependency solving for complex issues (such as a dist-upgrade).

Please go through the Release Notes, the relevant chapter is Upgrades from previous releases (link goes to english version for i386).

I'm amazed that people don't read the Release Notes even if they are available for all eleven architectures and translated to 14 different languages. The recommended method for upgrade is aptitude not apt-get. It has shown that it has better dependency solving for complex issues (such as a dist-upgrade).

Please go through the Release Notes, the relevant chapter is Upgrades from previous releases (link goes to english version for i386).

Yes and no.

Yes - It's already supported in i386, with the amd64 kernel images. You can run some 64-bit stuff with amd64-libs.

No - there is no *official* support yet for a 64-bit kernel with 64-bit userland. For an unofficial (and IMO fairly stable) port that will definitely be in etch, check http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ and http://amd64.debian.net/.

There was a huge debate about it, but leaving it out was for the greater good. Don't worry about it - it's definitely coming up if I can help it at all.

It might have been on a mirror that was still syncing with a master (which is odd). You should use BitTorrent instead.

1: there is a package called doc-base that if installed will cause BIG problems unless you upgrade or remove it first.

That's not true. The Debian X package maintainers ("strike force") are working on preparing a mostly-monolithic release of X.Org 6.8.2 right now. xprint is already separately maintained and will not be supplied from the X.Org monolithic tree, and xterm may be split off too. Josh Triplett is working on packaging the libraries, but Debian's not planning on waiting for that to happen before releasing X.Org, at least to experimental.

I think debian was the first distro to announce a switch to xorg, though I may be wrong.

Debian was certainly one of the first. Branden Robinson raised concerns about the freenees of the new XFree86 license almost immediately. No one in the Debian camp was happy with the new license, so the decision to switch to X.Org was pretty much made for Debian by XFree86 itself.

In order to get off the ground quickly, xorg has been releasing versions based on xmkmf that have only really been tested on x86 and ppc.

That's not a serious problem for Debian, which has been building xfree86 4.3.0 for all the architectures in sarge (arm, alpha, i386, ia64, powerpc, mips, mipsel, sparc, s390, m68k, hppa) plus amd64 and i386 versions of freebsd/netbsd and GNU Hurd for years. Most if not all of the patches made for portability's sake have been submitted various to the XFree86 Project and/or freedesktop.org over the years.

That's great, and means 90% of the people reading this can run xorg now instead of waiting six months for a non-legacy version.

A guy named Andres Salomon has extremely unofficial packages of X.Org for Debian unstable available now, or (with some difficulty) people can use Ubuntu's. The people who have an immediate need for something that works can get that need filled. Official packages which provide a little more polish and have had more eyes on them will take care of the rest of the people.

It's possible that the new "volatile" distribution of Debian, intended to bolt onto the now-released sarge and provide updates for non-release-critical problems (like new hardware databases, spam/virus filter rules, device drivers, etc.) might be able to house a stripped-down xserver-xorg-only package in the near future to service the video hardware out there that Debian's xfree86 4.3.0 (with several backported and updated drivers) won't.

Debian has been about doing things right, and waiting until they can do things right. They don't want to change to the transitional version of xorg and then change to the non-legacy version of xorg in six months.

Actually if you follow the debian-x mailing list, you'll see that Debian is prepared to cope with that.

When xorg gets around to a proper build script based around configure, and starts supporting all the architectures of xfree86, then debian will switch to them.

Debian isn't waiting on that to happen. The sooner it does, the better, but Debian doesn't want to tie its schedule to X.Org's. I agree that Debian's hell-bent on getting things right, though, even though some people characterise their efforts at regression testing as pointless.

David Nusinow and Branden Robinson (and it looks like Nathaniel Nerode is joining them) are doing most of the work to prepare X.Org 6.8.2 for Debian release. It draws in part from the Ubuntu packages, but not entirely. A Canonical employee named Daniel Stone, who contributed to Debian's XFree86 4.3.0 packages a couple of years ago but then started

That's not true. The Debian X package maintainers ("strike force") are working on preparing a mostly-monolithic release of X.Org 6.8.2 right now. xprint is already separately maintained and will not be supplied from the X.Org monolithic tree, and xterm may be split off too. Josh Triplett is working on packaging the libraries, but Debian's not planning on waiting for that to happen before releasing X.Org, at least to experimental.

I think debian was the first distro to announce a switch to xorg, though I may be wrong.

Debian was certainly one of the first. Branden Robinson raised concerns about the freenees of the new XFree86 license almost immediately. No one in the Debian camp was happy with the new license, so the decision to switch to X.Org was pretty much made for Debian by XFree86 itself.

In order to get off the ground quickly, xorg has been releasing versions based on xmkmf that have only really been tested on x86 and ppc.

That's not a serious problem for Debian, which has been building xfree86 4.3.0 for all the architectures in sarge (arm, alpha, i386, ia64, powerpc, mips, mipsel, sparc, s390, m68k, hppa) plus amd64 and i386 versions of freebsd/netbsd and GNU Hurd for years. Most if not all of the patches made for portability's sake have been submitted various to the XFree86 Project and/or freedesktop.org over the years.

That's great, and means 90% of the people reading this can run xorg now instead of waiting six months for a non-legacy version.

A guy named Andres Salomon has extremely unofficial packages of X.Org for Debian unstable available now, or (with some difficulty) people can use Ubuntu's. The people who have an immediate need for something that works can get that need filled. Official packages which provide a little more polish and have had more eyes on them will take care of the rest of the people.

It's possible that the new "volatile" distribution of Debian, intended to bolt onto the now-released sarge and provide updates for non-release-critical problems (like new hardware databases, spam/virus filter rules, device drivers, etc.) might be able to house a stripped-down xserver-xorg-only package in the near future to service the video hardware out there that Debian's xfree86 4.3.0 (with several backported and updated drivers) won't.

Debian has been about doing things right, and waiting until they can do things right. They don't want to change to the transitional version of xorg and then change to the non-legacy version of xorg in six months.

Actually if you follow the debian-x mailing list, you'll see that Debian is prepared to cope with that.

When xorg gets around to a proper build script based around configure, and starts supporting all the architectures of xfree86, then debian will switch to them.

Debian isn't waiting on that to happen. The sooner it does, the better, but Debian doesn't want to tie its schedule to X.Org's. I agree that Debian's hell-bent on getting things right, though, even though some people characterise their efforts at regression testing as pointless.

David Nusinow and Branden Robinson (and it looks like Nathaniel Nerode is joining them) are doing most of the work to prepare X.Org 6.8.2 for Debian release. It draws in part from the Ubuntu packages, but not entirely. A Canonical employee named Daniel Stone, who contributed to Debian's XFree86 4.3.0 packages a couple of years ago but then started

Good luck!

This is the parent link with the different arch.s and dvd images.
http://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/

Hey there guy!

People who like them selves use Bittorrent for this kind of thing.

Bittorrent is very robust. It check the integrity of the data as part of its normal operation. The data is exchanged, piece by piece, between the clients. It's far superior to resumed downloads.

This is a nice Java based client I like to use.
http://azureus.sourceforge.net/
The torrent files are at:
http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/3.1_r0/i386/bt -cd/

bittorents with Sarge

No, of course! Buzz has already be released a looong time ago!

1.1 Buzz released June 1996 (474 packages, 2.0 kernel, fully ELF, dpkg)

(from:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ ch-detailed.en.html#s4.2)

This release was planned for last weekend and was delayed by another week. This was public knowledge to anyone who reads Planet Debian, or even debian-devel-announce.

Ethan

This release was planned for last weekend and was delayed by another week. This was public knowledge to anyone who reads Planet Debian, or even debian-devel-announce.

Ethan

The new testing release is called etch.

If that's your sources.list, you are running Sid (unstable), not Sarge (which was "testing" until today, and is now "stable"). Anyway, your problems come from the fact that non-us has been deprecated. See section 2.1.2 of the Sarge release notes. Delete the non-US lines from sources.list, re-run apt-get update and you should be fine.

I've been following the release-critical bugs, which were down to about 18 a few days ago but have since jumped up to about 30.

I thought it was only going to be released when there were 0 release-critical bugs. Does this mean that all those packages have been left out of sarge, as per the original announcement? Otherwise, what's going on?

http://www.debian.org/releases/sarge/i386/release- notes.en.txt

For the sarge release, packages that were formerly in the non-US part of the archive have been moved into the regular archive. If you have any lines referring to "non-us" in your `/etc/apt/sources.list', you should remove them.

In case anyone was wondering, like I was... :)

Doh. You're right sorry. I was actually thinking of this though when I posted.

Anyway, can anyone shed any light on how people already running Sarge can fix their apt sources up to be official?

My /etc/apt/source.list (below) currently returns a lot of 404 Not Founds:
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free
deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ sarge/updates main contrib non-free

Do we just change 'unstable' to 'stable'?

Anyway, can anyone shed any light on how people already running Sarge can fix their apt sources up to be official?

My /etc/apt/source.list (below) currently returns a lot of 404 Not Founds:
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free
deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ sarge/updates main contrib non-free

Do we just change 'unstable' to 'stable'?

Anyway, can anyone shed any light on how people already running Sarge can fix their apt sources up to be official?

My /etc/apt/source.list (below) currently returns a lot of 404 Not Founds:
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free
deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ sarge/updates main contrib non-free

Do we just change 'unstable' to 'stable'?