FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-14-2008, 04:35 PM
Florian Kulzer
 
Default My first message... more of a mad mans rant...

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 17:28:38 +0100, Steven Maddox (Cyorxamp) wrote:
> Damon L. Chesser wrote:

[...]

>> Please respond back to the debian-user list.
>>
> You have a reply-to set you realise so replies go to yourself and not
> the list.

You are confusing reply-to with mail-followup-to.

--
Regards, | http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer
Florian |


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-14-2008, 05:05 PM
"Stackpole, Chris"
 
Default My first message... more of a mad mans rant...

<snip>
>My topics were..
>1) Lets try a version of Debian Etch without the binary firmware

Go for it. If it is something you want to see, then there is nothing
stopping you from trying.

<snip>
>3) Lets try a medium ground between stable and testing.

Why? I don't really see your point.

>From my perspective on what you have said in your email, I think this is
a really bad idea.

We all know how it works right now, but let's just go and follow the
logic of the current release method.

The journey begins in Sid (Unstable). After a predefined and well
regulated set of criteria are matched we get Testing. When testing has
gotten to the point of a good release, the code base is frozen and we
get Release Candidates. After the kinks are worked out in the RC's we
move on to Stable and when the life cycle runs again we end up in
oldstable.

What you are proposing is that packages move from Unstable, to a Testing
alpha package, then to Testing which would be the basis of the RC's, and
then onward to Stable.

But what has that gotten us besides an extra layer of hassle for the
developers? What new criteria and standards will be required to make the
move from testing alpha to testing beta? You say "no major
block/crash-like problems", but isn't that what Testing is for already?

>From my understanding, Testing was and is never meant to be an 'always
usable always working' OS. Testing is for /testing/ purposes. Stable is
for production. If you want to run /Testing/ on a "production" system
then you are on your own. If you want a stable environment, use stable!
If you need packages in testing, then risk having things in a bit of
turmoil.

I understand completely the need for packages that are in testing and
may not be in stable. I have a certain server that I was unable to build
with Debian Stable as there were too many conflicts with the 64bit
drivers in Stable. So I built the server with Testing. I have to be much
more careful with that system when I do upgrades because I can't afford
to be happy-go-lucky with it. However, I have another system that was
explicitly built for upgrading and updating Testing to /test packages
before deploying them/. Quite the idea, I know. Too bad I can't claim
credit for it. :-)

Trust me, I understand how frustrating things can be when Testing
breaks. Yet, I just don't see the solution in maintaining another level
of packages that may or may not break within testing. From your email it
sounds like you think it will be a simple extra package layer, but from
my understanding of how things work in Debian...I think it is going to
be a lot of work to implement and maintain. Then again, I am not one of
the big developers who knows the complete ins and outs of the process so
maybe I am wrong.

Personally, I would feel bad for the developers who would be forced to
upkeep an unstable, a testing alpha (may or may not break), a testing
(may or may not break), and a stable release version. It would be like
having a version of testing as a perpetual Release Candidate. I don't
really care to wish that on the developers.

I would like to see a well standardized release system. I think that is
one thing that Mark Shuttleworth is doing right over at Ubuntu. I
personally think that a 6mo release cycle is a bit much, however, would
it be really difficult to pick a date once a year and just state
something like "Every August 1rst testing is frozen and a release will
be made by the end of September!"? That way the time frame between
stable releases isn't absurd and everyone knows when they need to have
their code in place. It isn't an arbitrary date that developers may or
may not be aware of.

Again, this is my opinion, but I think that would be much easier on the
developers then a perpetual RC and I am all in favor of making the lives
easier for the developers.

If I completely misunderstood you, please correct me. I just don't see
your suggestion as just a simple extra package to maintain.

Just MHO.
Chris Stackpole


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-14-2008, 05:26 PM
Nate Duehr
 
Default My first message... more of a mad mans rant...

Stackpole, Chris wrote:


Personally, I would feel bad for the developers who would be forced to
upkeep an unstable, a testing alpha (may or may not break), a testing
(may or may not break), and a stable release version. It would be like
having a version of testing as a perpetual Release Candidate. I don't
really care to wish that on the developers.


If you want a working Sid machine, just load this:

http://sidux.com/

(No, I don't endorse anyone but people who know what they're doing and
what they're getting into using it -- I just know about it being "out
there" and I'm sharing so the tweakers who can't wait, but also can't
code or fix anything on their own... can play with it.)



I would like to see a well standardized release system. I think that is
one thing that Mark Shuttleworth is doing right over at Ubuntu. I
personally think that a 6mo release cycle is a bit much, however, would
it be really difficult to pick a date once a year and just state
something like "Every August 1rst testing is frozen and a release will
be made by the end of September!"? That way the time frame between
stable releases isn't absurd and everyone knows when they need to have
their code in place. It isn't an arbitrary date that developers may or
may not be aware of.


"Real" release dates are nice, but Debian also needs to keep the freedom
to NEVER break policy that states critical bugs either mean the package
is removed, or fixed, BEFORE release.


That's what makes Debian as rock-solid as it is for Production purposes.

If that means waiting 2 months to fix something that's busted... so be it.

Nate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-14-2008, 05:27 PM
Andrei Popescu
 
Default My first message... more of a mad mans rant...

On Mon,14.Jul.08, 14:42:30, Steven Maddox (Cyorxamp) wrote:

[...]

> First of all I want to bring up the idea of a FSF Debian GNU/Linux,
> everyone I have spoken to on IRC so far are in support of this idea so I
> thought I'd outline it here so that theres a record of it.
>
> I'm tired of seeing projects like gNewSense and Gobuntu. Debian is
> miles more in tune with FSF expectations on 'the free operating system'
> idea than Ubuntu is, for example Firefox is a problem which Ubuntu don't
> mind but we do. It would take far less effort for us to create a FSF
> compliant operating system than it is out of a 'Ubuntu Base' <- (that
> makes my stomach churn).

I like the balance chosen by Debian (freedom vs. usability).

> All we have to do is form an official sister project that makes a
> slightly tweaked version of stable (Etch) with a different Kernel that
> doesn't contain the binary firmware. Possibly if you wanted to get even
> more favour with the FSF you could swap IceWeasel for IceCat (since they
> are practically identical and serve the same purpose, but IceCat is GNU
> IceCat).

You can do it yourself

[about Ubuntu and Dreamlinux

> I would like it to be mentioned on www.debian.org/misc/children-distros
> as I think it is an admirable project and is now in the top 10 of
> distrowatch. Also I think Sidux works in a similar way by using our
> real repositories (I like calling these Sporks not Forks :P but I'm just
> odd) and that isn't on the list either. Dreamlinux devs and admins make

You should contact debian-www about that. I think I recall a discussion
about the children-distros page being outdated, but I guess manpower is
missing again. I you would be willing to supply patches against the CVS
source I'm sure they will be at least looked over. Or maybe that page
should be moved to the wiki? Again, this is a topic for debian-www

[making alpha releases from testing]

I like testing and unstable being rolling distros (without a set
version). IMO this is a feature not a bug. People who want/need
stability can use stable. Why do you think Ubuntu introduced the LTS
version?

Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)
 
Old 07-14-2008, 05:44 PM
Nate Bargmann
 
Default My first message... more of a mad mans rant...

* Steven Maddox (Cyorxamp) <s.maddox@cyorxamp.info> [2008 Jul 14 09:05 -0500]:

> First of all I want to bring up the idea of a FSF Debian GNU/Linux,
> everyone I have spoken to on IRC so far are in support of this idea so I
> thought I'd outline it here so that theres a record of it.

I believe that if you delve into the history of Debian, you will find
that at one time it was a part of GNU or at least had a very close
relationship with GNU. Each went their seperate ways for some reason.
A bit of research may reveal that each project has its own aim and do
not always agree on the definition of "freedom" or where the freedom
should exist or who (developer or user) should be the primary
beneficiary.

> Ubuntu being used as a 'base' for new operating
> systems (I can name many now, see wikipedia), or even as a 'Server OS'
> (are they Microsoft or what?) is a threat to what Debian is renounced for
> and could (one day) make us potentially defunct.

Sorry to be pedantic, but perhaps you meant "renowned" which is
synonymous with "famous".

I doubt that a rant about a dire future prediction will result in the
two projects joining--there are enough differences in philosophy on
both sides to keep it from happening. Besides, if the GNU people
wanted their own "pure" version of Debian, they've had on the order of
15 years or so to create it. That they've not bothered to do so says
something.

To quote or paraphrase a signature I've seen around here, "What you are
proposing to do will inolve a lot of time and hassle for no tangible
benefit."

For the nearly nine years I've been involved with the Debian community,
someone, somewhere, has been sounding an alarm about the imminent
demise of Debian. Yet, we're still here.

- Nate >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-14-2008, 06:11 PM
"Steven Maddox (Cyorxamp)"
 
Default My first message... more of a mad mans rant...

What you are proposing is that packages move from Unstable, to a Testing
alpha package, then to Testing which would be the basis of the RC's, and
then onward to Stable.


To be blunt... -Fail-
That is not what I have suggested what so ever in any way shape or form.

I could re-explain but I won't... you just wasted 8 reading paragraphs
of my life listening to you arguing against a suggestion I didn't make.


Please re-read what I suggested in my -original- message and not the one
with the highlights for the other person that totally misunderstood the
purpose of original message.



Steven


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-14-2008, 06:15 PM
"Damon L. Chesser"
 
Default My first message... more of a mad mans rant...

On Monday 14 July 2008 02:11:38 pm Steven Maddox (Cyorxamp) wrote:
> > What you are proposing is that packages move from Unstable, to a Testing
> > alpha package, then to Testing which would be the basis of the RC's, and
> > then onward to Stable.
>
> To be blunt... -Fail-
> That is not what I have suggested what so ever in any way shape or form.
>
> I could re-explain but I won't... you just wasted 8 reading paragraphs
> of my life listening to you arguing against a suggestion I didn't make.
>
> Please re-read what I suggested in my -original- message and not the one
> with the highlights for the other person that totally misunderstood the
> purpose of original message.
>
>
> Steven

Or, How to win friends and influence people. I will re-read it.

--
Damon L. Chesser
damon@damtek.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dchesser
 
Old 07-14-2008, 06:17 PM
"Stackpole, Chris"
 
Default My first message... more of a mad mans rant...

>To be blunt... -Fail-
>That is not what I have suggested what so ever in any way shape or
form.
>
>I could re-explain but I won't... you just wasted 8 reading paragraphs
>of my life listening to you arguing against a suggestion I didn't make.
>
>Please re-read what I suggested in my -original- message and not the
one
>with the highlights for the other person that totally misunderstood the

>purpose of original message.


OK. I will. I quote from your original email:

"If we had Alpha releases, say 'lenny-alpha1' release at a point where
there's no major block/crash-like problems being caused then people
could download that milestone release. 'lenny-alpha1' could then not
update until 'lenny-alpha2' is released"

Sounds like you want to have pre-stable release to me. It's called a
Release Candidate.

I still see no reason to have separate releases or stages within
testing. I think it is more trouble then it is worth for the developers.

Chris Stackpole


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-14-2008, 06:22 PM
Andrew Sackville-West
 
Default My first message... more of a mad mans rant...

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 05:28:38PM +0100, Steven Maddox (Cyorxamp) wrote:
...

>>> 3) Lets try a medium ground between stable and testing.

...

> This wouldn't be one more step... as I have already explained! It won't
> be unstable -> testing -> alpha -> stable... that would be plain stupid.
> Alpha will just be a slightly re-badged ISO (one of the weekly generated
> ones) that represents a significant but feasibly usable step... it
> doesn't need a separate repository or much management at all. Please
> re-read what I originally wrote about this idea, I don't think you
> grasped how simple the suggestion was.

Steven, welcome to DU.

I'm not sure what you're proposing here, but we already do something
like this with the combination of testing, code freeze and release
candidates. When testing gets to a point where it is almost ready for
release, the release manager issues a code freeze. That means no new
code moves into testing (unstable too? not sure on that). Then the
last of the RC bugs get worked on while the release team makes
occaisional Release Candidate releases. I figure these are essentially
beta test releases. Prior to a release candidate coming out, testing
is in a constant state of "alpha", it just doesn't have any numbering
scheme. I suppose, one could arbitrarily assign numbers to it. Take
the weekly snapshots and call each one lenny.alpha.xx where xx is the
week number or something like that. But that's really only a naming
convention, and not of any actual use.

.02

A
 
Old 07-14-2008, 06:22 PM
Arthur A
 
Default My first message... more of a mad mans rant...

Florian Kulzer wrote:

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 17:28:38 +0100, Steven Maddox (Cyorxamp) wrote:

Damon L. Chesser wrote:


[...]


Please respond back to the debian-user list.

You have a reply-to set you realise so replies go to yourself and not
the list.


You are confusing reply-to with mail-followup-to.

He's also confusing feedback and discussion with criticism and 'red alert
panics', or some such.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:13 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org