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 > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-11-2011, 08:33 PM
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
 
Default /etc/apt/sources.list

In <AANLkTimL1zqX6UmP6evGHGwBO6ojBFXYpB4sud0ZP1Vz@mai l.gmail.com>, Heddle
Weaver wrote:
>I've searched the wiki, reference and google like an idiot but can't seem to
>find a .list specification for unstable.
>I've upgraded from Lenny to Squeeze but want to go a little further.
>Does Unstable require a 'security' resource in the list at all.
>I'm assuming there isn't an unstable 'security', but do you leave 'testing'
>security in there as a config., or delete it.
>Thanks for any time and trouble.

Sid/Unstable does not have -security, -updates, -proposed-updates, or -
backports repositories, as they are not needed. There's little to no
restrictions on new versions entering unstable, so all these are handled by
direct upload by a DD.

The testing repositories need not be used either. They are mostly for when
the version in testing differs from the version in unstable, the unstable
version can't or shouldn't be force-migrated, and the testing version needs
updated. In this uncommon case, a version that falls between the one in
testing and unstable is uploaded to testing-proposed-updates and can be
migrated.

During a freeze there is significant social pressure that non-leaf packages
in unstable not be updated except for -security, -updates, or -proposed-
updates style changes, so that new, large transitions don't occur in testing.
This does mean that -backports style updates or new versions aren't seen for
a while in unstable, which is unfortunate. During the freeze, it may be
useful to follow experimental for occasional new versions. Better is to dig
into the list of RC bugs and resolve them, to reduce the time the freeze
lasts.

Even during a freeze is can be possible to coordinate the update of a non-
leaf package in unstable, but it basically means making sure all maintainers
that depend on your package directly or indirectly are comfortable with a
package flow through TPU. Since TPU has less visibility that unstable, this
is not often done.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
 
Old 02-12-2011, 09:29 AM
Andrei Popescu
 
Default /etc/apt/sources.list

On Vi, 11 feb 11, 15:33:30, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>
> The testing repositories need not be used either. They are mostly for when
> the version in testing differs from the version in unstable, the unstable
> version can't or shouldn't be force-migrated, and the testing version needs
> updated. In this uncommon case, a version that falls between the one in
> testing and unstable is uploaded to testing-proposed-updates and can be
> migrated.

As far as I understand sid/unstable users should always have testing in
their sources.lists, since the Release Managers sometimes remove
packages from unstable to help testing migration. I can search for the
exact reference in case someone is interested.

Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 02-12-2011, 09:54 AM
Tom H
 
Default /etc/apt/sources.list

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Andrei Popescu
<andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Vi, 11 feb 11, 15:33:30, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>
>> The testing repositories need not be used either. *They are mostly for when
>> the version in testing differs from the version in unstable, the unstable
>> version can't or shouldn't be force-migrated, and the testing version needs
>> updated. *In this uncommon case, a version that falls between the one in
>> testing and unstable is uploaded to testing-proposed-updates and can be
>> migrated.
>
> As far as I understand sid/unstable users should always have testing in
> their sources.lists, since the Release Managers sometimes remove
> packages from unstable to help testing migration. I can search for the
> exact reference in case someone is interested.

Yes, please.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: AANLkTinfKWB3i9TK4u4tET9AEFNKiRb+hPv+vdzbVubm@mail .gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTinfKWB3i9TK4u4tET9AEFNKiRb+hPv+vdzbVubm@mail .gmail.com
 
Old 02-12-2011, 09:56 AM
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
 
Default /etc/apt/sources.list

In <20110212102917.GK18225@think.homelan>, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>On Vi, 11 feb 11, 15:33:30, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> The testing repositories need not be used either. They are mostly for
>> when the version in testing differs from the version in unstable, the
>> unstable version can't or shouldn't be force-migrated, and the testing
>> version needs updated. In this uncommon case, a version that falls
>> between the one in testing and unstable is uploaded to
>> testing-proposed-updates and can be migrated.
>
>As far as I understand sid/unstable users should always have testing in
>their sources.lists, since the Release Managers sometimes remove
>packages from unstable to help testing migration. I can search for the
>exact reference in case someone is interested.

True enough. Sometimes packages are uninstallable due to missing
dependencies in unstable. This is much rarer with testing enabled, since the
automatic processes that do most of the testing management try to prevent any
package from becoming uninstallable.

Unless you are doing something to alter the default APT priorities, a system
with testing and unstable in sources.list will get the vast majority of
packages from unstable. They should also get -security, -updates, -proposed-
updates, and -backports style upgrades from the direct uploads to unstable,
so the testing versions of those repositories are unneeded.

It is possible, but uncommon, that you might get a package from testing, be
unable to upgrade to the package in unstable, but be able to fix a security
issue due to an upgrade in testing-security or testing-proposed-updates;
having the testing and testing-* repositories listed won't do any harm,
except for making apt-get update take a bit longer.

Depending on how/if/when CUT is implemented, the testing-* repositories might
get a lot more use, but right now they aren't usually populated with much.
most upgrades to testing go through unstable first.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
 
Old 02-12-2011, 10:10 AM
Andrei Popescu
 
Default /etc/apt/sources.list

On Sb, 12 feb 11, 05:54:55, Tom H wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Andrei Popescu
> <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Vi, 11 feb 11, 15:33:30, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >> The testing repositories need not be used either. *They are mostly for when
> >> the version in testing differs from the version in unstable, the unstable
> >> version can't or shouldn't be force-migrated, and the testing version needs
> >> updated. *In this uncommon case, a version that falls between the one in
> >> testing and unstable is uploaded to testing-proposed-updates and can be
> >> migrated.
> >
> > As far as I understand sid/unstable users should always have testing in
> > their sources.lists, since the Release Managers sometimes remove
> > packages from unstable to help testing migration. I can search for the
> > exact reference in case someone is interested.
>
> Yes, please.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00582.html

Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 02-12-2011, 11:27 AM
Heddle Weaver
 
Default /etc/apt/sources.list

On 12 February 2011 21:10, Andrei Popescu <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sb, 12 feb 11, 05:54:55, Tom H wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Andrei Popescu

> <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Vi, 11 feb 11, 15:33:30, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

> >>

> >> The testing repositories need not be used either. ┬*They are mostly for when

> >> the version in testing differs from the version in unstable, the unstable

> >> version can't or shouldn't be force-migrated, and the testing version needs

> >> updated. ┬*In this uncommon case, a version that falls between the one in

> >> testing and unstable is uploaded to testing-proposed-updates and can be

> >> migrated.

> >

> > As far as I understand sid/unstable users should always have testing in

> > their sources.lists, since the Release Managers sometimes remove

> > packages from unstable to help testing migration. I can search for the

> > exact reference in case someone is interested.

>

> Yes, please.



http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00582.html



Regards,

Andrei

--

Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:

http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

<snip>

┬*

O.K., so now, what I have as a result of 'aptitude update' is this:

Bandit:/home/weaver# aptitude update
Get:1 http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au unstable Release.gpg [835 B]

Ign http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/debian/ unstable/contrib Translation-en
Ign http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/debian/ unstable/contrib Translation-en_AU

Ign http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/debian/ unstable/main Translation-en
Ign http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/debian/ unstable/main Translation-en_AU

Ign http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/debian/ unstable/non-free Translation-en
Ign http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/debian/ unstable/non-free Translation-en_AU

Hit http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au unstable Release
E: Release file expired, ignoring http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/debian/dists/unstable/Release (invalid since 9h 53min 14s)


This is after reducing my /etc/apt/sources.list down to just the one line for 'unstable'.
Should I re-enter the 'testing' security line back in?
The standard 'testing' line also?
When I run aptitude at the ncurses interface, there's almost nothing in it.


Thanks for any time and trouble.
Regards,

Weaver.
--

Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful.

ÔÇö Lucius Ann├Žus Seneca.

Terrorism, the new religion.
 
Old 02-12-2011, 12:40 PM
Camaleˇn
 
Default /etc/apt/sources.list

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:10:49 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:

> On Sb, 12 feb 11, 05:54:55, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:

>> > As far as I understand sid/unstable users should always have testing
>> > in their sources.lists, since the Release Managers sometimes remove
>> > packages from unstable to help testing migration. I can search for
>> > the exact reference in case someone is interested.
>>
>> Yes, please.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00582.html

That message got another reply:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00585.html

So, should people running "sid" also add the whole "testing" repo under
all circumstances (as default policy) or just when some package is broken
and is in the need of back to the previous version or something is
missing? :-?

Greetings,

--
Camaleˇn


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: pan.2011.02.12.13.40.58@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.02.12.13.40.58@gmail.com
 
Old 02-12-2011, 01:04 PM
Andrei Popescu
 
Default /etc/apt/sources.list

On Sb, 12 feb 11, 13:40:58, Camaleˇn wrote:
>
> So, should people running "sid" also add the whole "testing" repo under
> all circumstances (as default policy) or just when some package is broken
> and is in the need of back to the previous version or something is
> missing? :-?

Can you think of a case where having testing in sources.list can hurt on
a sid machine?

Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 02-12-2011, 01:05 PM
Javier Vasquez
 
Default /etc/apt/sources.list

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Camale├│n <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:10:49 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>
>> On Sb, 12 feb 11, 05:54:55, Tom H wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>
>>> > As far as I understand sid/unstable users should always have testing
>>> > in their sources.lists, since the Release Managers sometimes remove
>>> > packages from unstable to help testing migration. I can search for
>>> > the exact reference in case someone is interested.
>>>
>>> Yes, please.
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00582.html
>
> That message got another reply:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00585.html
>
> So, should people running "sid" also add the whole "testing" repo under
> all circumstances (as default policy) or just when some package is broken
> and is in the need of back to the previous version or something is
> missing? :-?
>
> Greetings,
>
> --
> Camale├│n

In my experience, testing is more dangerous than unstable. Reason
being that testing doesn't refresh as frequent, so when bugs show up,
you have to live with them for longer, or there are more probabilities
for you to do more hand work (in unstable it's more probable to get a
fix sooner).

To me testing makes more sense when there's code freeze and one wants
to have a taste of what's soon to come, but still close enough to
stable and under heavy scrutiny (given it's about to become stable).
Other than that unstable alone is safer.

The comment about removing packets from unstable, well, that might
happen, but that doesn't mean the packet gets uninstalled
automatically from the box. BTW, the times I've seen packages being
removed from unstable, they have really gotten out of the repos, so
instead it had help me educate the reasons why (I go look the web, or
ask the list), and if there are alternatives under the repos... BTW,
aptitude is of great help, specially safe-upgrade, :-)

--
Javier.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTi´┐ŻajUdEG4jFSqWPFJ3i4y4C16srZSwRoHs1@mail.g mail.com
 
Old 02-12-2011, 01:34 PM
Brian
 
Default /etc/apt/sources.list

On Sat 12 Feb 2011 at 22:27:12 +1000, Heddle Weaver wrote:

> O.K., so now, what I have as a result of 'aptitude update' is this:

[snip]

> Hit http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au unstable Release
> E: Release file expired, ignoring
> http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/debian/dists/unstable/Release (invalid since 9h
> 53min 14s)
>
> This is after reducing my /etc/apt/sources.list down to just the one line
> for 'unstable'.
> Should I re-enter the 'testing' security line back in?
> The standard 'testing' line also?

Re-entering those lines will not cure the problem if unstable's Release
file is invalid. Try another mirror.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110212143420.GZ32679@desktop">http://lists.debian.org/20110212143420.GZ32679@desktop
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:53 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org