Debian 3.0 (Woody) May 1?

dex@ruunat noted that this morning, in a message to the debian-devel-announce mailing list, Anthony Towns, Debian's Release Manager, wrote: "I'm becoming increasingly confident in woody's release readiness. So, to go out on a limb: Debian 3.0 (codenamed woody) will release on May 1st, 2002." Congrats to all the debheads putting this thing together. I have a blank CDR waiting ;)

Comments

Re:Version numbering?

[rusty0101]

Like anyone else does so?
Mandrake 8.2, RedHat 7.2, ...

Release numbers for packaging distributions are, and should be numbered by the people maintaining the distribution, to reflect their own perception of whether the release is a major, or minor improvement over the previous release.

For Linus and co, the enhancements to the kernel that moved it from 2.2 to 2.4, were minor changes, things like adding USB support, do not warrent a major version number. If the scheduler or virtual memory manager gets a major improvement, that would probably warrent a version 3.0, or so.

With Debian, the kernel is not the only thing that gets improved by moving from potato to woody. Updates to the user interfaces; Gnome and KDE; many packages, OpenOffice, ssh, and others; as well as the improvements to the kernel, moving from 2.2 to 2.4; suggest that this will be a Major improvement to the Debian Distribution.

Then again, they may be looking at other distribution version numbers and thinking that the public will percieve Debian 2.4 to be less "market" friendly than Debian 3.0.

After all, I wasn't in on the decision to version the software, and these are only my opinions. I could be wrong.

-Rusty

Re:Blank CD-R?

[Malc]

Yes: 1 blank CD-R to boot from.

Why bother downloading 8 images when most of the stuff isn't going to be used? Well, I speak for myself there... I need a portion of the distro. Use 1 disk to boot from, and then apt-get what I need. Which reminds, I need to clean out some 530MB from /var/cache/apt/archives of packages that I've apt-getted in the past.

Kernel :Version numbering?

[castlan]

Which kernel would that be? A BSD kernel perhaps? OpenBSD is at 3.0 last I checked, so that works out, unless you believe that Debian/NetBSD is more realistic.

Facetious, perhaps, but you fail to acknowlegde that Debian is a "kernel independant Operating System" that is popularly based on Linux. There is nothing stopping debian users from chosing KDE if that is their preferred desktop environment, just as there is nothing stopping x86 users from choosing The Hurd if their hardware supports it.

Debian has a larger scope then you seem to realize. Distinction from the Linux kernel is the best reason I can see for supporting a Major release increment to 3.0, as otherwise I would much prefer a more conservative path better utilizing the range of our decimal counting system under the auspices of 2.x.

While I hope my post has contained a modicum of sensibility, I fear that this is not the case.

Re:What you won't get in woody...

[Daniel Stone]

Why the *hell* is this not good?

KDE3 is not yet tested enough for a Debian stable release, trust me. Neither are the debs, packaging issues can play a significant part in some problems. I'm personally waiting for 3.0.1 or 3.0.2 before I start deploying it throughout work, although I tracked KDE3 CVS for some time at home (I can deal with segfaults, and it makes it easier to package if you only have to make slight changes every time, instead of being hit with one big lot in the tarballs).

apache2 is NOT NOT NOT ready for prime time. I would not deploy this in a Debian stable release; luckily, neither would Thom. When I maintained it, I always said it would wait until after woody, and luckily it will. The GA was only announced today, and so Thom would have to upload it as NEW, which means it wouldn't make it into woody, even if it could. Even offering it side-by-side with Apache 1.3.x in a stable series is irresponsible.

As for XFree86 4.2, Branden's been too busy with fixing up 4.1.x to do 4.2.x well. XFree86 is one of those dead core packages that need to just WORK every single time, and cannot screw up. There was never enough time to give it the thrashing it needs; I think that having XF4.1.x in a stable series is a pretty sweet effort; Branden deserves a pat on the back. He has a reputation for quality, well-tested packages, and I somehow doubt he'd shatter that this close to a release. Plus, we'd all rip his arms off and beat him to death with the limp end if he did.

Thanks for listing the good points of Woody.

Re:The only complaint I have about Debian

[macshit]

Check out the aptitude program (you'll have to install the package of the same name) -- it's really good and getting even better fast; the author really seems to be on the ball (it used to be pretty bad, so if you tried it before and dismissed it, try it again). Not only does it provide a great full-screen apt interface, but it also has a command-line mode that improves on apt-get!

This is the package management interface that debian's been waiting for, IMHO.

[another alternative is `deity' (ne `console-apt'), but though it's rather colorful, the UI basically sucks; aptitude is much better.]

Re:The only complaint I have about Debian

[macshit]

Since I really do think aptitude rocks, I'm going to reply to myself to point out a few of the cool features it has, beyond the nice user interface:

• It tracks which packages were installed `automatically' (e.g., to satisfy a dependency). If such `auto' packages later become unnecessary because nothing depends on them anymore, they will be uninstalled automatically.
• It has a powerful and useful search system -- you can search not only for package names, but for descriptions (and other package fields), various special attributes, and boolean combinations of these things. For instance, the search string `(lib)~i!~M!-dev' will find packages who's name matches the string `lib', and are installed, and were not automatically installed (see above), and who's name doesn't match the string `-dev'.
• These search expressions can be used not only in interactive searches (which, incidentally, are incremental, like Emacs's isearch), but also to limit the set of packages displayed, or to perform various operations in command-line mode. I could use the command `aptitude remove "(lib)~i!~M!-dev"' to remove all packages matching that expression (but I won't, since that it happens to match libc6).

As you can see, although aptitude is great for the non-expert user, because of the simple and intuitive interface, it's not just for them. Even when I want to install something from the shell, I now always use aptitude's command-line interface instead of apt-get, because of the above features.

Re:I want journalled filesystems on Debian!

[GoRK]

You obviously haven't looked in the directory which contains the woody install disk images, because it's plain as day. The instructions for finding this and a description of what it's about are in the "Installing Debian/GNU Linux 3.0 (woody) for i386" guide that IS linked to from the woody webpages, which are linked from an obvious place on www.debian.org. Here is the direct URL since you're so dumb: http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/i386/install. en.txt

Here is the url to take you directly to the bootable 2.4 disk images.
http://http.us.debian.org/dists/woody/main/disks-i 386/current/bf2.4/

ISO images for woody aren't provided yet since the package list is currently changing; however, the instructions on the debian CD site and the scripts there will make you an ISO of this unrelased software easily. If that's not enough for you you can try some premade images from a source like http://www.linuxiso.org/debian.html Hell, there's even DVD images floating around. You can buy a preburned one here: http://www.linux-cd.com/store/cgi/store.cgi?client =14491123&action=serve&item=woody.html

Premade ISO's won't be available for woody until it is released. "Official" ISO's are available for previous relases from the official site at http://www.debian.org/CD/. Minimal images designed to replace a set of boot floppies, "netinst" cd's, are also linked to from that site at http://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/

I find it ironic that you seem to be capable of writing a novella about how inept you are at reading. You seem to know exactly what you want, but since www.debian.org doesn't show it to you in big bold letters on the front of the page, why you didn't click on the search button is entirely beyond my comprehension.

I will give to one of your points: that the default installer can be improved. For the woody release, it was decided "if it ain't broke don't fix it." The next release will contain a better one. If you really can't wait, make a woody netinst cd with the Progeny installer. Or can you not type "apt-get install pgi" successfully? Someone will probably make one of these available with the progeny installer after woody's release.

Think you can put together a better debian website? Why don't you sign up?

Re:What you won't get in woody...

[Overfiend]

As for XFree86 4.2, Branden's been too busy with fixing up 4.1.x to do 4.2.x well. XFree86 is one of those dead core packages that need to just WORK every single time, and cannot screw up. There was never enough time to give it the thrashing it needs; I think that having XF4.1.x in a stable series is a pretty sweet effort; Branden deserves a pat on the back.

Well, I myself am not exactly thrilled that woody won't have 4.2 in it, but:

• As you said, I've been busy with getting 4.1.x stable. For Debian, this means much more than it does for some vendors. In woody, we support 11 architectures: alpha, arm, hppa, ia64, i386, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, and sparc. For how many of these machine architectures do Slackware, Mandrake, or Red Hat have 4.1.x, let alone 4.2, available? XFree86 themselves don't test or prepare distribution tarballs for several of these architectures. Debian is the de facto portability laboratory for XFree86 on Linux. Sure, I'll grant you that a lot of people, the kinds with the overclocked Pentium 4's and the latest GeForce card, really don't care about portability, or supporting architectures they've never heard of. But portability is important to me and it's important to Debian. I refuse to treat non-i386 users like second-class citizens. Those who want CVS HEAD, are best advised to learn how to check it out and type "make World". I'm sure that Pentium 4 overlocked to 3 GHz will compile the X source tree pretty quickly. :-) The single most amazing thing about all the hate mail I've received for not having 4.2 Debian packages ready -- aside from the fact that I started receiving it about two days after it was tagged upstream -- is that people seem to be laboring under the delusion that I have some kind of secret tools locked away in a vault, and that I am the only person who has the power to create packages. Sure, I'm probably better at doing XFree86 debs than most people, since I've been doing it for so long, but there's no great secret. I'm sure that with half an hour of manpage reading, a reasonably intelligent person can learn everything he needs to produce XFree86 4.2 debs for himself that will work well enough to satisfy his impatient self. Hey, I like to see the latest and greatest of everything, too -- that's why I use apt-listchanges, but I don't go haranguing the Debian developers to package up a new upstream version when I can clearly tell that they're working on other things for the project.
• On a related note, 4.2 just plain won't work on some of Debian's supported machines because we need the PCI Domain support, which is currently a branch in XFree86 CVS and did not make it into the 4.2 release. So for us, releasing 4.2 doesn't just mean releasing 4.2. It means releasing 4.2 plus some very large patches in very critical parts of the server code. You really, really want a good long opportunity to shake that sort of thing out, since Debian's 4.2 may not behave exactly as XFree86's 4.2 does.
• I don't just package the thing tagged xf-4_2_0 and leave it at that. I track hotfixes commited both to the latest release's branch and to HEAD, and incorporate them into Debian's packages if they work and if they make the packages better from a quality standpoint. Ask ATI video card users about 4.2.0 and "composite sync" sometime. (This isn't to dog the XFree86 Project. Software has bugs. Software releases with bugs. But, knowing about the default composite sync issue which affects so many users, it would be irresponsible of me to ignore it.)
• I didn't expect it to take until May for woody to release. Back in January, I felt sure that there was no way Anthony Towns would accept 4.2 into woody; when I sounded him out at the time about it he sounded kind of skeptical. Needless to say, the longer it takes woody to release, the worse a decision this is, but I don't have control over the release process. (Strictly speaking, Anthony doesn't either -- meaning, he can declare a release, sure, but he can't force people at gunpoint to fix the remaining release critical bugs. And Debian's philosophy has been to release when "it's ready", not when some marketroid tells us to, and thus just live with whatever whopper bugs happen to be in the release that day.)

So, that's why XFree86 4.2 isn't in woody.