Slashdot Mirror
Debian Project Votes To Postpone Policy Changes
jonoxer writes "A little while ago members of the Debian project voted to make changes to the Social Contract. As previously reported on Slashdot, the end result looked likely to be a delay in the release of Sarge, the next Stable edition of Debian, until 2005. But on Saturday Debian developers voted to postpone the changes until after Sarge releases, effectively affirming that the changes need to be made but making a pragmatic decision to not let the next release be delayed as a result. The official voting page doesn't show the result yet, but it's been semi-officially announced."
that sound you just heard was the clue flying over your head.
yes, the move to postpone changes so as to not delay the release will someone put it farther behind.
I bet you also think 2+2=3
If you just use the release name instead there is no conversion that happens.
Eg:
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian sarge main contrib non-free
Due to the elegance of Debian this sort of thing is completely painless. I've personally done this on several machines when "woody" became "stable". Its easy to do because when "testing" finally becomes "stable" all that changes in the archive is that symlinks all change.
Currently:
testing -> sarge
stable -> woody
After the release:
stable -> sarge.
As an end user you have the option of tracking either by "testing/stable" or "woody/sarge". To do what you want should track "sarge" rather than "testing". The best method is to use "real names" in your /etc/apt/sources.list. That is, make all occurances of "testing" (or "sarge") all read as "sarge". This way you won't even need to know when "sarge" becomes "stable", all that will happen is your updates will suddenly become less frequent and all updates will be for security.
Elivs
PS- sorry about tpyos and poor formating I having a busy day.
You more or less nailed it. See, Debian themselves doesn't distribute material. Debian's ftp-masters group does; the ISPs who donate very large amounts of bandwidth and hosting for all of Debian's servers. In exchange, Debian gives then a best-effort to verify that there is and will never be a problem with any of the material that Debian asks its generous donors to redistribute.
The ftp-masters group is politically very strong. They can overrule any Debian Developer's decision, the Technical Committee, or even the Project Leader himself. They are where the rubber meets the road and as such, their decisions on what packages they distribute--and how--are final. The only recourse for Debian is to reject that server and remove them from the list of official servers and mirrors.
The primary purpose of debian-legal is to service the ftp-masters. Because without distributors, Debian can't reach any audience.
This is fantastic news, absolutely fantastic.
As the current version of Debian is obviously not compatible with the new policy decisions, it is not as if releasing one more version with the same incompatibility will be such a big deal.
I agree that Debian should be as free as possible, but if what is currently released was all right a few years ago, then it will keep for another year or so.
Assuming, of course, that the next release comes out in about a year, which would be a GOOD THING. One major upgrade a year is fine. Once a month would be far too unstable, and even once every six months would be unnecessarily unstable for Debian, IMHO.
(I am not a Debian developer, but I do maintain about thirty Debian machines. My opinions are based on this.)
...and extreme things have trouble fitting into a real world.
What they're doing here with this social contract and slowing down development to maintain principles is not just an inconvenience - it may lead to this distro becoming less and less relevant if not dying outright.
Its kinda like holding your breath because you're gainst air pollution and want to stick to your principles. If you do it efficiently you'll pass out a lot and get very ill. If you do it with absolute efficiency you'll put your head in a bucket of water and die. I think the former is a better anology to what's happening here because there will always be Free software extremists about to keep a distro like Debian alive if not well.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Click the link above for a better explanation of instant runoff voting (try the flash demo). It's ultimately the best way to get what the people want. I love that the IT organizations (Debian, ACM, IEEE) are using this!
One simple rule for its versus it's
Well slackware's installer is far easier than I ever imagined. And if you really knew indepth about apt-get and dpkg, you'd realize that slackware doesn't have anything close to it. and nor does Fedora. Yum is weak and in it's infancy, and doesn't have neither the functionality nor the power of apt or dpkg. But unless you knew the 2 in-depth, you'd be clueless as to what I'm relating to.
-- [H]itman_forhire
But as I understand it (I don't use Debian), FreeBSD's stable is less "stable" than Debian stable (in that it's updated a lot more). FreeBSD STABLE is still a branch where potentially big changes are made, and it's possible to cvsup a broken setup. What seems to be a more adequate comparison is FreeBSD's RELENG. RELENG is basically frozen in time at a particlar release (RELENG_4_8 for example, corresponds to 4.8-RELEASE), and is only updated with security/stability fixes.
reading through these comments i wonder: When will people learn that debian/stable is not contain the latest and greatest software?? "stable" in terms of debian the distro means that no major amounts of software are changed, it only gets security updates. the packages in the stable tree aren't changed, so therefore it's stable.
if you want the latest and greatest software, run debian/unstable. "unstable" doesn't mean that the software itself is unstable, it's just that the packages in the unstable tree are changed/updated often, hence calling it "unstable". debian unstable contains all the goodies that are in the latest versions of other distros, like kde 3.2, gnome 2.6, etc, etc.....
also, yes, all the packages in sarge may fill 14 cds, but you don't need to download all of them. all you need to get is the net-installer iso (around 100 MB) and then download only what you want. so set up the base system with the net-install cd, then the latest versions of whatever you want are just an apt-get away.
sorry for the rant, but people unfamiliar with debian are often misinformed or make unfair assertions.
The installer was redesigned in Sarge, and should be much easier to use.
And you don't have to download all 14 CDs: only do so if you a) have a penchant for pain or b) are obsessive with hard copies of things.
You only need the first CD to have a working stable system, and Debian sorts its packages based on popularity, so most likely, you'll find what you need within the first 4 CDs.
You could also just use apt-get and an http or ftp source, but I guess that would be too convenient.
Alright, this really shits me.
/etc/apt/sources.list! It's as easy as that. apt-get update, followed by apt-get -t experimental gcc-3.4. DONE.
Exactly WHAT part of Debian is out of date? It's not the packages, that's for sure.
I use Debian unstable. Do you actually know what the "unstable" part means? It means that the contents of the "unstable" packages are probably still changing! Does that make it any less usable? When you're admining 20 servers, you probably don't want your PostgreSQL database server to suddenly become incompatible with your data due to a format change. (aside: debian upgrade scripts can try to automagically dump/re-import your old database for you)
But compared to a desktop OS like Fedora? NO! Debian unstable is absolutely FINE for desktop usage, despite the "unstable" label.
So why is it called "unstable"?
It may be because upstream is still changing fundamental parts of the app, such as when the new exim4 (at the time) decided to split the config files up. You can't put that in "stable" can you?
Or it may be because the Debian package maintainers haven't figured out the best way to package something according to Debian policy, like when the vim package suddenly decided to break into multiple packages separating out arch-independant/doc related stuff to avoid duplicating data on the mirrors.
I'm sure there are better examples, but the point is, when comparing Debian vs DesktopLinuxOS like Fedora, compare Debian Unstable.
If you do, you will find that package updates are plenty and timely. I think the kernel images are barely even a week behind the kernel.org releases. Gnome 2.6 took a while, about TWO WHOLE FRIGGING WEEKS. How much faster do you want?
If, for example, you want the latest GCC 3.4 which I'm guessing isn't considered "ready" to replace GCC-3.3 as the default compiler, then just add an experimental source in your
Geez, why after all this time do people still not GET Debian.... it's enough to make somebody ANGRY
Try Knoppix! You burn a bootable CD and can run the entire OS from CD. This will let you play a lot with Linux so you can decide on if you want to use it in the future. Knoppix is based on Debian and can play basically any file (except RealVideo and Quicktime sorenson, but that is due to legalities). Standard Debian is not that easy for the beginner, not sure if Gentoo is better. The new installer for Debian is good though, and it makes installing pretty much painless.
a release cycle has little meaning to the Debian project, since anyone with the skills to install Debian and the patience to learn it's package management system can easily update a system to whatever they want. The only reason for Debian to do new releases is to bring the project in line with it's Social goals.
This is why when someone says they run Mandrake or Redhat, they'll tell you the version (8,9,10, etc), but if you ask a Debian user they'll just say 'Debian' and leave it at that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Sure, a shitload of packages filled with last years versions.
/etc/apt/sources.list, which I've done recently to install GCC-3.4 so I could test it's FPU code performance.
/etc.
Most packages are less than 2 weeks behind official upstream releases. Gnome 2.6 took exactly 16 days to enter unstable after it was officially released by the Gnome guys. I was able to upgrade with the usual apt-get update && apt-get dselect-upgrade with absolutely no problems, as usual.
Sure, if two weeks isn't fast enough for you, you can add an experimental source in
But then again if you're such a version number junkie you probably don't care about getting real work done and so Debian may not be the best distro for you.
If you venture outside of the debian cult compound you will find many Gentoo and FreeBSD users who "made the switch" away from Debian in the last couple years. Shit some are even going to Fedora! Debian is definitely hemorraging userbase but slackware has shown theres always enough fanatics around to keep a project going long after it's relevance has expired.
Sure... That's why Knoppix/Debian are a close 3rd/4th behind Mandrake/Fedora on distrowatch? I suppose Gentoo and SuSE are distros with a "hemorraging" user base who's relevance has also expired?
Debian has never been a distro for everyone and I think the same people who stuck with Debian years ago are the same sorts of people who will stick with Debian in the future. With the growth of the 'net and increased awareness of Linux, all distros are under much higher scrutiny from a much broader crowd of people looking to try out Linux.
Regardless, Debian undoubtedly remains the best Linux distro on non-x86 hardware, and certainly holds its own amongst the more x86-centric distros. It has excellent QA and the best quality packages with hassle-free upgrades that I've seen on any distro. I haven't tried to use Gentoo seriously; I didn't like the way it liked to smash config files in
I've got another rant post that might help to explain the difference between unstable/testing/stable to you.
Cheers
I think it is. It's not explicitly stated in the Debian Constitution, but IIRC every new package that is uploaded must be approved by the ftp-masters before it will be added to the archive.
Are there any instances of the ftp-masters insisting on things that the most of the rest of the project doesn't want?
Not as far as I know. The ftp-masters don't really hold any ceremonial power. They just collectively control the distribution system; if the ftp-masters refuse to allow a certain file to be on their machines, then that file will effectively not be in Debian. It's similar to how CmdrTaco effectively controls every post anyone makes to Slashdot. Although he doesn't have to specifically approve posts, if he deletes your post, there's nothing you can do about it.
It's more of a "sysop == God" thing than anything else.
You usually shouldn't put too much faith in zealots, you know.
The primary benefit of Debian (at least, to me) is not apt. It's the fact that Debian had apt several years before any other distro did, and that Debian *continues* to be (IMHO) the leading distro in terms of system integration and ease-of-administration (for power users).
Debian Policy, and the fact that almost all the software I use is packaged according to this policy, is the single most important reason why I continue to use Debian.
Oh, and if you're looking for something almost as new as unstable, but that isn't unstable, I suggest you try the "testing" branch. (On most of my machines, I run testing, plus the odd package from unstable.) The easiest way to do this is to put something like the following in /etc/apt/preferences (note how I specifically designate that the mozilla-firefox package is to come from unstable):
Many people using debian do not understand what the labels stable, testing and unstable mean.
Debian stable ist called stable, because the packages are only replaced in order to fix security flaws. The security patches are manually backported by the debian security team. This concept assures that one can configure a system and handcoded scripts will not break until a new version of debian stable is released (every 2-3 years!).
So stable has the meaning that one can install a system, do automatic daily security updates and forget about it until the next version comes.
Debian unstable gets updated packages every day. So if you would like to have current software you could chose debian unstable. Unstable does not get security fixes. This isn't too bad, because the original software mainainers patch their software and this will get into debian unstable pretty soon.
Than there is debian testing which is meant to be the testing system before the release of the next version of debian stable. It does not get security patches. It sometimes does not get timely package updates.
If you want a system which is stable in the way, that the software does not have many bugs, you should NOT use debian stable, but UNSTABLE!!! This is because non-security-bugs are not patched in debian stable, but in debian unstable, as new versions arrive there. A good example is mozilla: In debian stable, the current version is 1.0.0! It did not even get security fixes as this would have meant too much work! In debian unstable the current version of mozilla is 1.7. Mozilla 1.7 definetely crashes less often than Mozilla 1.0.0!
Do not use debian testing for other reasons than testing the next version of debian stable! Testing has sometimes outdated software AND does not get security patches. This combines the bad features of stable and unstable!
So if you want a system that almost never changes, because you do not have the time to reconfigure your system often, use debian stable. In all other cases, use debian unstable. It is not less secure. In some cases, like mozilla, it is MORE SECURE! Never use debian testing, except you want to help with testing at the debian community.
Please do not suggest that debian stable has less bugs than debian testing which has less bugs than debian unstable. Almost the opposite is true!
No, this isn't true. The ftp-masters are Delegated by the Project Leader to perform checking packages against legal issues. They indeed have a say whether or not to let a package go in the archive.
However, as with every delegate and also the Project Leader himself, their decisions can be overridden by the developers (by means of a vote, where any five developers can call for).
In the end, the developer body has the ultimate say about everything.
--Jeroen
Site slashdotted? Look here for mirrors, or even better: o
Congratulations - you've identified a problem that doesn't exist, and proposed a solution that won't work. A remarkable feat.
Fourteen CDs is too much? Quite right, which is why Debian Sarge currently comes on one CD, which weighs in at a whopping 110 megabytes. Everything else is installed via apt-get - you select the packages you want, and nothing more.
If you want to install it on more than one machine, you set up a local package repository, so you download only the packages you need, you download them just once, and then you, um, install Debian on all your machines very quickly and easily.
Look, CD-based distribution is a thing of the past, Debian is an Internet-based distribution. There's no need to split it up, because it's already split up - the basic unit of Debian is the package, not the CD. There's no need to prune the packageset to fit it on CDs, because nobody who understands the distribution system WANTS it on CDs.
The idea of downloading even 700 MB of data, when all you want from that arbitrarily chosen section of Debian is about 30 MB, strikes me as ridiculous. I can't imagine why I should have to download 700 MB of Gnome applications in order to run OpenOffice.org and Mozilla under KDE, which is how your proposed division would set things up.
And if you're talking about dialup users who'd want to order a CD set instead of downloading the entire distro - why is 14 CDs too much, then? CDs cost almost nothing to press, and almost nothing to ship. The only circumstance in which an OS could be "too big" is when you're downloading it, and as I've already said at great length, NOBODY. EVER. DOWNLOADS. THE. WHOLE. OF. DEBIAN. Because there's no need to and no point.
The Debian Developers aim to provide three things to the users, IMO: security, ease of installation, ease of upgrading.
Security means that for the stable release the security team will provide timely updates for all known security issues. For unstable the security is provided by the DD responsible for the package - usually unstable versions are updated at the same time as the stable. For testing this does not apply at the moment, though. If the DD tags his updated version as "urgent", it will propagate to testing within two days, but I don't really have data as to how many developers do this. There have been intermittent ideas about having a separate security team for the testing, but these haven't really taken off.
Ease of installation means that you should always be able to say "apt-get install foobar" to get foobar package working in your system. In stable this is a must, in unstable sometimes this breaks.
Ease of upgrade means that you should be able to say "apt-get install foobar" when you know that foobar has been updated without having to worry about losing any of your existing configuration. This applies to all distributions, but of course in unstable you run a higher risk of encountering a bug which might cause your configuration data to be lost.
You CAN'T be serious. All my machines run testing and I have yet to see a single broken package. It works great, and unlike stable, it is quite up-to-date.
I do not have the patience or the time to deal with unstable. Maybe you enjoy fixing broken packages but I do not.