RFC: Why are so many debian packages outdated?
Hello,
Now when Wheezy is about to be released I would like to raise an issue. How come that there are still so many outdated packages becoming part of Wheezy. Some package maintainers are very responsive in upgrading to new upstream releases, others are having packages several years old. Something is not OK, compared to other distributions, why releasing outdated upstream software (I'm not thinking about essential packages here). Yes, I know about the rock solid stability, that's appreciated!. But it should also reflect current software. gcc-4.7 is a good example of current software (it will part of squeeze even if there were a lot of complaints recently...) The Debian package maintainer system is maybe too old-fashioned? Or more NMUs should be made/allowed/encouraged? I know all packaging is made by volunteers at their spare time, but anyway. Debian is one of the best distributions, what about raising the bar a little higher? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342127161.4582.26.camel@x60 |
RFC: Why are so many debian packages outdated?
Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> writes:
> NMUs should be made/allowed/encouraged? I know all packaging is made by > volunteers at their spare time, but anyway. Debian is one of the best > distributions, what about raising the bar a little higher? The only way you can really improve the situation is to help with the packages. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: 84fw8w4qy0.fsf@sauna.l.org">http://lists.debian.org/84fw8w4qy0.fsf@sauna.l.org |
RFC: Why are so many debian packages outdated?
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 00:20 +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> writes: > > NMUs should be made/allowed/encouraged? I know all packaging is made by > > volunteers at their spare time, but anyway. Debian is one of the best > > distributions, what about raising the bar a little higher? > > The only way you can really improve the situation is to help with the > packages. I already have (with patches to bug reports), but becoming a Debian maintainer I have not yet applied for. Maybe doing some packaging, and ask for a sponsor will be a good way to get involved more, as a start. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342128347.4582.31.camel@x60 |
RFC: Why are so many debian packages outdated?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Svante Signell wrote:
> Now when Wheezy is about to be released I would like to raise an issue. > How come that there are still so many outdated packages becoming part > of Wheezy. Some package maintainers are very responsive in upgrading to > new upstream releases, others are having packages several years old. Yet another thread about this decade old "issue" is not really going to help the release, since it takes time for reading it away from potential RC bug fixing time. Folks who are interested in avoiding reading threads like this might be interested in the tool being discussed in this event at DebConf12: http://penta.debconf.org/dc12_schedule/events/951.en.html -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6HfOoeaju1vA7oW4e00A9-PKCSQLzKyD1ORm=t+CshkHQ@mail.gmail.com |
RFC: Why are so many debian packages outdated?
Adding debian-devel to the recipients. I think the question belongs
there. On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 21:39 +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:25:47PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 00:20 +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > > > Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> writes: > > > > NMUs should be made/allowed/encouraged? I know all packaging is made by > > > > volunteers at their spare time, but anyway. Debian is one of the best > > > > distributions, what about raising the bar a little higher? > > > > > > The only way you can really improve the situation is to help with the > > > packages. > > > > I already have (with patches to bug reports), but becoming a Debian > > maintainer I have not yet applied for. Maybe doing some packaging, and > > ask for a sponsor will be a good way to get involved more, as a start. > > Yes, doing some packaging via a sponsor is a way to immediately start > contributing to Debian. What to do if the maintainer is unresponsive? Ask somebody else to do the upload, or pinging the maintainer again? Alternatives (what about wine 1.2++) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342129673.4582.41.camel@x60 |
RFC: Why are so many debian packages outdated?
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 23:47 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> Adding debian-devel to the recipients. I think the question belongs > there. > > On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 21:39 +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:25:47PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > > On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 00:20 +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > > > > Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> writes: > > > > > NMUs should be made/allowed/encouraged? I know all packaging is made by > > > > > volunteers at their spare time, but anyway. Debian is one of the best > > > > > distributions, what about raising the bar a little higher? > > > > > > > > The only way you can really improve the situation is to help with the > > > > packages. > > > > > > I already have (with patches to bug reports), but becoming a Debian > > > maintainer I have not yet applied for. Maybe doing some packaging, and > > > ask for a sponsor will be a good way to get involved more, as a start. > > > > Yes, doing some packaging via a sponsor is a way to immediately start > > contributing to Debian. > > What to do if the maintainer is unresponsive? Ask somebody else to do > the upload, or pinging the maintainer again? Alternatives (what about > wine 1.2++) I think this issue is very relevant to Wheezy. Why are there so many outdated packages going into this release? The whole idea of unstable is (to my understanding) to package the latest upstream releases, and get the bugs squeezed out, right? And when the freeze happens, the latest stable software is available to the next Debian release. Or is this reasoning completely wrong? Please tell if the Debian goals are different from the above. Maybe I have misunderstood the whole idea of Debian experimental/sid/testing/stable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1343252564.16717.78.camel@x60 |
RFC: Why are so many debian packages outdated?
Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> writes:
> I think this issue is very relevant to Wheezy. Why are there so many > outdated packages going into this release? The whole idea of unstable is > (to my understanding) to package the latest upstream releases, and get > the bugs squeezed out, right? And when the freeze happens, the latest > stable software is available to the next Debian release. Yes. And therefore you have just answered your own question. Older software goes into the wheezy release because, at the time of the freeze, just as you said above, one of the following was true: 1. The new release was not packaged for unstable. 2. The bugs weren't squeezed out in unstable before the freeze. It's not particularly complicated, although of course fixing any one particular case where we want newer software can be quite complicated (because 1 and 2 both have to happen before the freeze). -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: 87ipdbmqva.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87ipdbmqva.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu |
RFC: Why are so many debian packages outdated?
On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 15:13 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> writes: > > > I think this issue is very relevant to Wheezy. Why are there so many > > outdated packages going into this release? The whole idea of unstable is > > (to my understanding) to package the latest upstream releases, and get > > the bugs squeezed out, right? And when the freeze happens, the latest > > stable software is available to the next Debian release. > > Yes. And therefore you have just answered your own question. > > Older software goes into the wheezy release because, at the time of the > freeze, just as you said above, one of the following was true: > > 1. The new release was not packaged for unstable. > 2. The bugs weren't squeezed out in unstable before the freeze. > > It's not particularly complicated, although of course fixing any one > particular case where we want newer software can be quite complicated > (because 1 and 2 both have to happen before the freeze). Well there is experimental that could be used to package pre-releases and new releases to make them suitable for unstable and testing _before_ the freeze! Add to that unresponsive package maintainers, refusing to package new versions of upstream software, even with wishlist bugs filed. Take a look at the age of some of these bug, both in time and release numbers. There are people willing to package new releases, but they are blocked by the current package maintainer. That problem is maybe more related to the d-d thread entitled: "Hijacking packages for fun and profit" BoF at DebConf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1343293330.16717.99.camel@x60 |
RFC: Why are so many debian packages outdated?
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:02:10AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> Well there is experimental that could be used to package pre-releases > and new releases to make them suitable for unstable and testing _before_ > the freeze! > > Add to that unresponsive package maintainers, refusing to package new > versions of upstream software, even with wishlist bugs filed. Take a > look at the age of some of these bug, both in time and release numbers. > There are people willing to package new releases, but they are blocked > by the current package maintainer. That problem is maybe more related to > the d-d thread entitled: "Hijacking packages for fun and profit" BoF at > DebConf There are a ton of reasons why Debian may have an older version of an upstream release. For example, and I hasten to point out that the following list is by no means exhaustive, and not all of the possibilities are common: * The Debian package maintainer is dead, but nobody noticed it yet, and nobody has wanted an update badly enough to do an NMU or to adopt the package. * The upstream release is actually a fake. It's a trojan, which was put there by the NSA in order to infiltrate the CIA mainframe. The Debian package maintainer noticed this and uploaded that version of the package to non-free instead of main, since the trojan code does not come with proper source. * Upstream has moved the RSS feed for new releases without notifying the old feed of the move, so the Debian package maintainer missed that, and doesn't actually know about the new release. Due to a complicated series of happenstance involving rainbows, midget unicorns, and the ongoing rewrite of the Netsurf web browser, the Debian package maintainer is not able to find the new feed because it would require doing a web search and their browser doesn't have working form support now. No other browser is available on the Amiga they're using as their only computer, either. * The new release is requested by insistent Hurd porters, and the Debian package maintainer absolutely loathes the Hurd, and will refuse to upload any packages that work on the Hurd. * The Debian package maintainer suffers from mental problems cause by reading debian-devel too much, and now has a nervous breakdown every time they recognize a name as someone whom they've seen on the list. * The Debian development process is being sabotaged by Microsoft sending people to the developers' houses pretending to be TV license checkers or Jehova's witnesses every time they detect, using the hardware wireless keylogger embeddded in every PC, that the developer is trying to run any Debian packaging command. * Apple is also sabotaging Debian by paying me to write snarky e-mails on Debian mailing lists to distract everyone from working on the actual release, so that we can get past the freeze and start uploading things again without having to worry that it breaks things in ways that makes the freeze longer. -- I wrote a book: http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ |
RFC: Why are so many debian packages outdated?
Hello,
Lars Wirzenius, le Thu 26 Jul 2012 10:31:24 +0100, a écrit : > * The new release is requested by insistent Hurd porters, I would just like to confirm that the Hurd porter team does *not* back Svante's request for new releases. Even though we have already explained him several times why in general new versions are not well tested, etc. he seems to continue asking for them. Please consider that he is speaking on his own, do not take him as "the Hurd porters". The Hurd porter team wants to avoid anything that would delay the release. > and the Debian > package maintainer absolutely loathes the Hurd, and will refuse to > upload any packages that work on the Hurd. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120726112834.GO4692@type |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:05 AM. |
VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.