Slashdot Mirror
Debian Testing Tree Goes Online
A few people noted that Debian has
brought the 'Testing' Tree on-line. So now we have Stable (currently potato) for production boxes, Testing (woody) for settling things down before an eventual release, and a new unstable tree for those of us who'd just rather things randomly break. Here's a bit
more info if you're
curious.
Testing (as far as I know) is for packages that have been tested long enough so that they don't break every other package on your system (a similar event happened earlier when glibc was updated many db-dependant packages like apache and exim broke). The idea is that packages first go into unstable where little is known about how they work, then after some time they (automatically?) filter into testing. Then testing will eventually fork into frozen which slowly solidifies into stable. Difference is that testing is frequently updated with somewhat-new packages whereas frozen generally only accepts bug fixes.
Testing has the ovbious advantages of being new-enough, without all the hastles and worries about breakdowns. Stable is still the best for production servers, and people who don't want to apt-get update/upgrade very much. Testing is good for some server situations, and the majority of desktops where apt-get update/upgrade should be done maybe once a week or so. And unstable is as always, unstable (well in Debian terms, I'm sure most find it plenty stable).
-- BLarg!
After a little research, I found the proper package and everything works wonderfully again.
What package was that? I'd really like to go back to Debian.
I don't remember for sure, but I have the following packages installed...
perl-5.6
perl-5.6-base
perl-5.6-debug
perl-5.6-doc
perl-5.6-suid
It was either perl-5.6 or perl-5.6-base. After I did an "apt-get install" on the one that was missing, apt started working again.
I installed it for the first time the other day in a similar situation, you only need 2 floppies (is it that hard for you to find another).
As a newbie who's only used Windows and RedHat before now, the installer is the best I've seen - I haven't seen another (in my limited experiance) that gives you nearly as much control over the whole process. Installing Win98 scares me now.... ("What? You bastard, you overwrote my MBR without asking!! Noooooooo!")
Unstable is unstable, and sometimes (but not too often) it breaks. In general I find it to be more stable than the so-called "mainstream" distro's stable versions.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
Isnt this the same logo as dreamcast gaming console?
If you disable the 2.4 kernel's pcmcia modules and use the ones in the pcmcia-cs package, the wavelan works fine. I just rebuilt my 2.4 system today for this reason.
If you want random things to break, just use Windows (any version prior to 2000)
I think....therefore I am
I reject your reality
That sounds pretty interesting. But I'm curious...
What happens when the latest version of Package A, which depends on the latest version of Package B, goes into Testing but the latest version of Package B doesn't make it into testing because of bugs? Is that dealt with automatically by either apt-get or the testing scripts?
Apache is the only real innovation that's happened with open source/free software.
How is Apache innovative? Is it not a recreation of NCSA httpd? nuf said.
cpeterso
bah why waste such a good troll if you're not going to log in. of course its only an operating system. if you don't like it, don't use it. if i don't like windows, i won't use it. of course the fact that i have to pay for windows makes the comparison unbalanced. why shouldn't you want a free operating system that does everything windows does?
I just found that out 2 days ago. I tried to reconfigure it but it wasn't able to write the file to: :P
etc/X11/Xwrapper.conf
because I wasn't in the root directory. (It should have tried to write the file to
/etc/X11/Xwrapper.conf
instead I think. I took me 15-20 mins to figure it out.
You mean there's another way?
Besides, I might want to try a BSD car rather than a GPL car--there's less engine knocking, I hear, and I'm not concerned with the possibility of people reselling my spark plugs. And... oh, wait, the analogy just broke. Never mind.
If you install Debian using PPP, you won't need more than 2 disks. Indeed, you would need the additional disks w/drivers in order to get your network card (if it wasn't a 'standard' card like a cheap NE2000 clone).
You're tired of Slashdot ads? Get junkbuster now!
I think its great what they're doing. But, Isn't debian mostly alpha stuff. I mean it's always in the testing phases so what's the real point here?
Although if you like things to just randomly break, why aren't you using Windows?
--
Help us build a better map!
Thank you! Just Saturday driving to the mall I was explaining to my girlfriend the difference between distros, and I tried to remember the ~3 month old story/advantage of Debian going to a stable > testing > unstable tree. Anyway, for the past few days it's been nagging me that I couldn't remember how stable > frozen > unstable was any different.
It's the automatic nature (~2 weeks) of unstable packages coupled with the assumtion that any major bugs {are now!}/will be rectified within unstable before they are shifted to testing. So IOW, testing (packages) can be thought as 'unstable for 2 weeks with any showstopper bugs already dealt with in the 2 week interim to testing.'
And the advantage of that is that Debian users report that nixing such bugs out in the first two weeks provides a typical/like-other Linux distro usable quality (read, a faster more up to date Debian GNU/Linux =)
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Jaco
Agreed. Personlly I use unstable and only once has it bitten me in the ass (when they did some x font changes a while back in 2.0). Other than that, unstable is as up to date as I need to be and as stable as I need.
The stable tree is (I'm guessing) there for people who don't want to update every day and find things are always new. I have servers running old versions of unstable, and have never had a problem.
I have to admit, I am one of those people who like to have things just randomly break. Unstable trees are definitely for me. That is why I sometimes have an uncontrollable urge to use Windows and Chevrolets.
The anti-salmon
I've abused the hell out of Debian stable more than I care to mention, and it hasn't screwed up once. That is more than I can say for Redhat/Mandrake/SuSE/etc... Each one of those had apps that bombed out on me the first time I ran them, not so with Potato.
"We obviously need a new moderation category: (-1, Woo-fucking-hoo)" --Mr. AC
In order to understand the problem, you have to understand how Debian does (or at least "did") user-specific stuff. For anything where multiple versions were available, and for which end users might want to select which one to actually use, they set up links in /etc/alternatives and then another link in whichever directory is appropriate, usually /usr/bin or /usr/sbin for binaries.
Since there are multiple versions of perl interpreter out there, and since users might want to select between them, perl was done in this way so you might have /usr/bin/perl linked to /etc/alternatives/perl which would then be linked to /usr/bin/perl-5.005 or some such.
Well, the perl5.6 package deleted the link /usr/bin/perl and didn't replace it with anything. Since many of the install scripts use perl, this started breaking stuff during the upgrade that first included perl5.6. It took me a while, but once I noticed that install scripts were failing with "file not found" errors, I took a quick look and was able to verify both that the broken programs were perl scripts and that /usr/bin/perl was nowhere to be found.
So, I immediately created the symbolic link between /usr/bin/perl and /etc/alternatives/perl and re-ran apt, which fixed everything whose install was broken. Problem solved, and no reinstalling.
Since then, it appears that more recent versions of the perl5.6 package copy the actual perl binary into /usr/bin/perl (at least on the computer I use most, /usr/bin/perl and /usr/bin/perl5.6.0 have the same size and MD5 hash) so the problem does appear to have been fixed. However, I'm seeing some wierdness in woody that may be associated with the recent switch to package pools. (From what I understand, package pools allow files to move from "unstable" into "testing" without massive quantities of copying any time someone makes a change. This is a more significant development than a "testing" release, in my opinion.)
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
There is a way to install with one, or even 0 floppies, if you have a dos partition. I've seen it done, but was unfamiliar with linux at the time to remember how.
All right, that makes sense. Like I had said, I am fairly new to Debian, mostly because 99% of the linux books out there focus on Red Hat. So this is the first time I've watched this cycle
-- this
WHereas for the last few releases, runining debian unstable will give your random brekaings, as well as sudden, erratic, changes inpolicy that change the way your machine works.
I'd be hard pressed to expalain why, but I pointed this new installation to unstable yesterday. . After letting it run two entire nights, I now find the explanation for behavior and inconsistencies that are beyond what you usually see with unstable . . .
Now how in the world do I back it down from unstable to testing?
Stuff like this is a significant factor in my shift from debian to FreeBSD (no, not the only one; I like the way bsd utilities work better than GNU in most of the cases where I perceive a difference; object to the code-hoarding of the GPL, prefer the ports and makeworld, etc.). But this installlation is supposed to go in the kids computer, and stay pretty much stuck once it stabilizes (and once I get my replacement hard disk for this machine--until then, I keep the drive). FOr what the kids need, running a fairly standard Linux has more advantages than running bsd--ironically, it's binary compatibility with pre-packaged binariess. OH, that's why I went to unstable--I wanted the newere kde for them (and yes, I *am* deliberately ducking the license issues here--you can find plenty elsewhere that I've written aabout that issue)
hawk
It's not that unstable is generally unstable, but that occasionally it will bite you--bad. I found this to be about twice a year. But losing my system for most of a day while I repaired it, or used another machine to keep up on mailing lists to figure out *how* to repair it, got to be too much. I used stable through about 1.1 (bo? it's been a while). After that, the bites got to be too much.
THis new "testing" branch would have solved, I believe, all of the "gotchas" I faced (but probably wouldn't have caught the change in how fvwm functioned; I was apparently the first to file the bug/change, and I think I fought it for more than two week).
hawk
That's further than I ever got with Debian Potato. (Disclaimer: I've never compiled anything in my life, but I'd heard good things about the way Debian installs/sets up things.)
I went through the whole picking-modules thing (the dependency mapper is damn neat - automatically determining which packages conflict, which need certain other packages, recommend them or suggest them. I like that a lot) - but the problem didn't pop up until I tried to set up the X server.
There was no option for the GeForce 2 GTS 32Mb. Bit of a bugger, cos that's what I've got right now. I tried both GeForce 256 and GeForce DDR, and the X server ends up either not working or dumping me in 320x200.
This is after trying both entering my monitor settings from the manual, and trying one of the default settings which matched closest. (I have a monitor capable of 1600x1200, so it would have coped.)
The thing I find most confusing is that Red Hat "gets it" every time. I always end up with a pristine 1280x1024 in X under RH. (I think it has GF2 support, mind you.)
Once I can get Deb to behave with the GF2, I'll probably stick with it. Anyone got any ideas how I could sort it out without drowning in source code?
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. Always boom tomorrow. BOOM!
Yes, the scripts which generate testing deal with it. Dunno what algorithm they use, though.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Uhm -- it's an unstable distribution, that means its just simply being tested and not complete -- debian is very stable in my opinion, I run it on my local box and haven't had any problems to date...
Primer
I think this is one more step to debian being a more accepted distro. It technically has many merits - but one of the common complaints is that its out of date.
SSL Certificate
note that generally you install OS once, then upgrade forever. considering this, which is more important - slick installation or smooth upgrading?
they are working on installation though...
why are the leading spaces ignored? this post has two leading spaces in the text box where I write this but the ones before first paragraph are ignored when the post is actually posted... (posting as plain old text)
erik
...all excited, don't know why...
well, in my personal experience (which is admittedly limited), debian "stable" doesn't seem to be any more stable than "unstable".
they both seem to be about as stable as any other linux distro. because of this (and my need for newer packages), i always use unstable these days. sometimes unstable isn't even new enough though. XFree 4 wasn't included in unstable for a long time. i had to compile it myself for a while (yech...).
Interesting that now redhat and slackware fall in line with their own conjurings of APT. Debian's been doing it all along and only now do other distro's understand why people love debian. You spend more time using the applications and less time screwing with setups and configuration.
Actually I am glad to see it coming out so quickly. I think that was a shorter period than Potato spent in unstable, but than again why I switched over to Debian Potato was already frozen, so I can't really comment on that.
-- this
Well, there's a half solution. Switch "testing" for "woody" in your /etc/apt/sources.list and update. This won't downgrade packages to the testing versions but eventually the testing versions will "catch up with" and overtake the woody ones and you'll be getting only testing updates from then on.
As to what to do with the woody packages you have that are later then the testing versions... well, after you do the above change you could try manually doing "apt-get install " and see what happens. It might do what you want, or it might just say "already have a later version". Never had an instance to try it but it's worth a shot.
Call me crazy, but when something breaks on my system, I try to fix it rather than switching distros.
.rpm so I switched to mandrake/debian/otherdistro"
How many times do you read on slashdot "oh yeah I couldn't install the matrix windomaker theme
HUH?????
When you get a smudge on your windshield do you trade your car in for a new one?
Help is available!
Next time something breaks, look for a mailing list for that app and search the archives, try jumping on irc.debian.org #debian, do a web search... nine times out of ten there are other people experiencing the same problem who are more than willing to help.
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
- Toby
The install procedure is very well documented. All you got to do is RTFM at http://www.debian.org. After reading, you'll discover all you need is 2 disks (the boot disk and the root disk), and from that point, you can select your cdrom as the source for the packages and begin installing the best OS I've ever used.
You're tired of Slashdot ads? Get junkbuster now!
Well, that made things clear.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
It's good to see Debian got the tree up in time for Christmas. Soon we'll be decking the halls with boughs of Woody.
Read the rest of this comment...
Basically, the testing distribution is "maintained" by an automatic script, which contains all packages which have been in the unstable (i.e. development) distribution for two weeks without a release critical bug being filed, subject to satisfying package dependencies. The idea is that testing might be buggy, but should be up-to-date and not completely broken. See here for more detail and precision.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I needed a good laugh!
Actually, don't you also have to have the three driver disks to install your network driver, assuming that you want a network install (versus a CD install, which presumably wouldn't need additional drivers)?
He said CD or network, so your answer was correct if you treat his question as a boolean expression. :)
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
devil-make-care-I'm-surprised-it-even-compiles-I'm -not-wearing-any-pants development.
Just promise me you never put up a web-cam.
The enemies of Democracy are