On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:17:06AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Yes, it probably usually is just like that.
>
> I see it's just too hard for ordinary desktop user to resolve broken
> deps, even if it's really such easy as removing one single package. The
> "undo" should be achievable in s
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 08:17 +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> >Lennart said
> >> Peter said
> >> If You and several people claim they haven't met such problems with
> >> testing, I can live with that. I also heard people whose experience was
> >> different, and my personal one is closer to them
Hi, Len
Yes, it probably usually is just like that.
I see it's just too hard for ordinary desktop user to resolve broken
deps, even if it's really such easy as removing one single package. The
"undo" should be achievable in simpler way.
There are valid assertions that sometimes it's just no
Look Greg,
in the original post, I referred the security patch introduced breakage
jut to point out the existence of such risk, in order to make weighting
the risks more realistic. Just like this: "There is some degree of risk
of breaking functionality connected to upgrading to recent upstrea
On 17-May-07, 06:23 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think the LSB-compliance and reasonably short (or reasonably long)
> release cycle are inevitable goals. The sooner achieved (naturally), the
> better.
>
You know, Debian has been discussing how to speed up rele
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 08:10:21AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Yes, and security upgrades never change behaviour of software and never
> break things. That's the way it OUGHT to be. The reality has its own
> turbulences.
I don't remember security upgrades ever breaking anything in testin
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 07:56 +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Michelle Konzack said:
> > You forger that DOWNGRADING is officialy NOT SUPPORTED by Debian.
>
> That should be changed anyway, since security upgrades occasionally
> break things too.
You keep saying this, I haven't seen this in Sa
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 07:56:57AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Yes, I have written it there too. Kernel is, IMO, the best thing to
> upgrade few times during release cycle, with quite little risk.
Upgrading the kernel is quite high risk. Features come and go and
change with each new kern
Hi, Jose
What about maintainer/developer-friendly thing?
That'd be great.
I think, the more recent is the supported software, and the more
LSB-compliant is the base, the less extraordinary work for developers
and less concern for end users. This dosen't conflict with either
philosophy her
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mgr. Peter Tuharsky escribió:
> Stanislav,
>
>
> I see Your point, however this is far from "user-friendliness".
>
> First solution -use other distro. Wow, what a great idea. Looking at
> statistics and Linux users in neighborhood, You can be _sure_
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:37:29AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Just waving your hands and
> >saing that "not much additional work should be necessary" isn't good
> >enough.
> Right. Are there any real movements to synchronise Debian's cycle with
> LSB's one slightly?
No. Nor, IMHO, sho
Don,
Volatile is for software which is known to be time critical, like
virus and spam catching rules.
Almost all Debian initiatives start as unofficial measures to
demonstrate their efficacy. Eventually if they work and there is
sufficient demand for them, they become official.
Okay.
It
Am Mittwoch 16 Mai 2007 17:17 schrieb Steve Greenland:
> On 16-May-07, 06:24 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's been in context, meant as "many of those problems" -a relative part
> > of problems, not absolute number of them.
> >
> > No, it's not worth the time. It's a
Ben,
this is the most constructive advice on the topic I think :-)
Thank You.
Peter
The user has that choice, to the extent that can be reasonably
expected. Consider:
The Debian project is run by volunteers: all the work done is done
because someone sees value to themselves in doing it.
T
Hi, Don
recent? current? upstream? fresh? :-)
Why the need for volatile then? I admire I'm confused a bit. Whatever,
there should be one supported, official, and acknowledged repository for
the purpose, I think. Not necessarry ALL desktop software should be
upgraded this way, however at least
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:20:48AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Stanislav,
>
>
> I see Your point, however this is far from "user-friendliness".
>
> First solution -use other distro. Wow, what a great idea. Looking at
> statistics and Linux users in neighborhood, You can be _sure_ they
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:12:18AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Steve,
>
>
> I see main problem with testing that broad platform changes are going
> there. That's why things break sometimes there.
>
> That's why I think, that the Stable platform with new desktop software
> might be the
"Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeas. Let the choice to the user. Don't dictate him. Whoever wants
> to use the old software w/o change, let be it. Whoever wants the new
> one, noticed about the risks, let's give him an official and
> supported way to do it.
The user has that
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> This is closest to "backports" and "volatile" idea. I wouldn't call
> it "backports" however, because that reminds porting some very new
> software to some very old platform, and this is not the case. The
> stable's basic platform should stay LSB-co
Stanislav,
I see Your point, however this is far from "user-friendliness".
First solution -use other distro. Wow, what a great idea. Looking at
statistics and Linux users in neighborhood, You can be _sure_ they
discovered that way already :-)
Be also sure, that unwilling to do more for desk
Steve,
I see main problem with testing that broad platform changes are going
there. That's why things break sometimes there.
That's why I think, that the Stable platform with new desktop software
might be the choice -the new software versions with no platform
dependecies breakage risk.
Th
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 08:20:50AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Steve,
>
> >And as others have pointed out, the purpose of stable is to minimize
> >disruptions. For many users, living with known bugs with known workarounds
> >is a *lot* better than identifying new bugs.
>
> Yeas. Let the c
Steve,
And as others have pointed out, the purpose of stable is to minimize
disruptions. For many users, living with known bugs with known workarounds
is a *lot* better than identifying new bugs.
Yeas. Let the choice to the user. Don't dictate him. Whoever wants to
use the old software w/o
Steve,
The problem is that your "history" doesn't match the experience of any
one else participating in this thread. You keep making assertions about
testing being broken, sometimes with "hundreds of broken dependencies".
Since one of the key criterion of packages entering testing is
"dependenci
> I install regulary NEW kernels where Debian had only 2.4.27 I used
2.4.32/33 and thats NOT the same as pushing a NEW Xorg into stable.
The Kernels can be installed without any problems parallel, and if
one is not working, you boot the last working one.
Yes, I have written it there too. Kern
"Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote "worse" because for Debian, this is worse. Not that it is
> damaging it somehow. Of course there naturally will be other
> distros, cooperating hopefully.
>
> It's "worse" because it implies, that Debian is not as good desktop
> as it oug
(Please don't CC me on list mail.)
On 16-May-07, 01:58 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland wrote / nap?sal(a):
>
> As I illustreted, "rock solid" is not automatically guaranteed by
> oldness of software or by length of pre-release testing.
And as others h
On 16-May-07, 06:24 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's been in context, meant as "many of those problems" -a relative part
> of problems, not absolute number of them.
>
> No, it's not worth the time. It's a history.
The problem is that your "history" doesn't match
Am 2007-05-15 09:41:17, schrieb Mgr. Peter Tuharsky:
> The kernel, the X.org
>
> I realise, that the kernel and X.org are somewhat delicate things,
> because they affect both desktop and server. Changing them in the middle
> of release life, might not sound too well.
Sorry, thats not right!
I
Am 2007-05-15 11:25:56, schrieb Mgr. Peter Tuharsky:
> Do You think, that
> -compiling new upstream version of software against stable platform,
> building a package and distributing it
Containing NEW bugs and the loop goes on... -- No Thanks!
> -needs more effort than
> -studying security fix
Am 2007-05-15 09:29:46, schrieb Mgr. Peter Tuharsky:
> I think, any new stable version of the desktop software should be
> automaticaly added to security updates and distributed to end user.
> There's no need to test the tested and stabilise the stable software.
> Should the new stable version b
On Wednesday 16 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Thus, I assume that not only novice consumers have the need for
> improving desktop software and bugs seen fixed.
>
> However, Debian dosen't officially support and embrace any way to do
> this. Watching for new version, You're on Your own.
>
Hi, Daniel
When you talk about "desktop users", I think you really mean "novice
consumers". Is that a fair assessment? In my experience, Debian can
work just fine on the desktop in some situations, just not for novice
home users. (think, e.g., about desktops for office workers)
We have ha
Hi, Andreas
Another hand, many problems were well-known by the time I met them,
there wasn't need to report them again.
So if there are really well-known "many problems" can you do me a favour
and list one or two here?
It's been in context, meant as "many of those problems" -a relative part
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:12:30PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> > > Do you realize Debian's stable is classified as this:
> > >
> > > Stable means stable package list. No changes in API and ABI
> > > names or versi
On Wednesday 16 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> > Do you realize Debian's stable is classified as this:
> >
> > Stable means stable package list. No changes in API and ABI
> > names or versions. This means no newer versions will ever make
> > it into "stable". It is i
Haven't heard how libtruetype security upgrade caused OpenOffice.org,
Sorry, should be "libfreetype"
Peter
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't have enough knowledge to do that.
Peter
David Nusinow wrote / napísal(a):
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 09:41:17AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
The kernel, the X.org
So are you volunteering to join the kernel and XSF teams to make this
happen?
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
I'm glad it works for You.
Peter
Greg Folkert wrote / napísal(a):
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 21:43 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian
releases:
testing becomes quite "stable in means of usab
Hi, Greg
You took it quite actively.
As many see, all of them are different in server and in desktop world,
and many times Debian chooses to dictate the users "we know the best
what You need" instead of listening to them.
Why then are there 28000+ packages in Debian? If Debian only dictates
On Wednesday 16 May 2007 09:11, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> I'd say, half of problems with testing were connected to bugs in
> installer.
This statement really wants some qualifications...
The official releases (beta and RC) of the installer for testing have had
no really serious bugs, though t
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
Don't remember, not too much. However, if hundred of packages had broken
deps,
This statement is definitely wrong.
where would You report the bug? I'm not too experienced with apt and I
hate hacking around it.
There is no need to hack around
In several mails you claimed testing as broken. This is completely
orthognal to my experience. I'm using testing since its existence
on most of my boxes.
I use it on some boxes too, however, mostly the snapshots from the
half-year before-stable period of time. Attempts to use much sooner
s
Steve Greenland wrote / napísal(a):
On 14-May-07, 07:55 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$
refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even worse,
abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu?
W
Raphael Hertzog wrote / napísal(a):
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
Yes, bugs are unavoidable. However, testing is often in situation "whole
system broken" or "nearly useless". I see difference here; occassional
bug in desktop app is acceptable. Whole system unreliable is not a
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 09:41:17AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> The kernel, the X.org
So are you volunteering to join the kernel and XSF teams to make this
happen?
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PRO
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 21:43 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
>
> > We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian
> releases:
> > testing becomes quite "stable in means of usability" somewhere half
> year
> > before it's released as "s
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 14:55 +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or
> M$ refugee?
For me the choice is clear. I use Debian for myself. I choose to support
Ubuntu for people that do not want as many choices. This is what M$
refugees t
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian releases:
testing becomes quite "stable in means of usability" somewhere half year
before it's released as "stable". The sooner before the stable, the rapidly
increasing is the chance
On 14-May-07, 07:55 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$
> refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even worse,
> abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu?
Why is this worse? Why isn't there
On 15-May-07, 08:27 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian releases:
> testing becomes quite "stable in means of usability" somewhere half year
> before it's released as "stable". The sooner before the stable, the
On 15-May-07, 04:25 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do You think, that
> -compiling new upstream version of software against stable platform,
> building a package and distributing it
> -needs more effort than
> -studying security fixes in upstream, backporting them to
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:55:40PM +0200, "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> Debian developers often see "Ubuntu the enemy" and are mocking it as
> inferior technology. However, they fail to see, what does the Debian
> really offer to desktop users eventually. They fai
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian releases:
> testing becomes quite "stable in means of usability" somewhere half year
> before it's released as "stable". The sooner before the stable, the
> rapidly increasing is the
We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian releases:
testing becomes quite "stable in means of usability" somewhere half year
before it's released as "stable". The sooner before the stable, the
rapidly increasing is the chance that the snapshot that You have will
not be inst
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Yes, bugs are unavoidable. However, testing is often in situation "whole
> system broken" or "nearly useless". I see difference here; occassional
> bug in desktop app is acceptable. Whole system unreliable is not acceptable.
Have you facts to ass
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 14:44, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Yes, bugs are unavoidable. However, testing is often in situation
> "whole system broken" or "nearly useless". I see difference here;
> occassional bug in desktop app is acceptable. Whole system unreliable
> is not acceptable.
Can you subs
Hello,
On Le Tuesday 15 May 2007, à 14:01:28, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Testing should simply be the place where _platform_ changes are shaken
> > out, not the "input buffer for the new software".
>
> Actually sid is where the platform changes are done. And once they're OK,
> they get moved to
Hi, Raphael
Testing is usable. I used it through the whole development cycle of etch.
Bugs are unavoidable, you said it yourself. It's a matter of how many
problems you can accept.
Yes, bugs are unavoidable. However, testing is often in situation "whole
system broken" or "nearly useless". I se
Hi,
Thank you for sharing your point of view. But you draw too many
conclusions. You speak out of "rumors" and "experience" and you fail to
understand that Debian is not a Desktop-only distribution.
Get involved and learn our development process, you'll discover that you
can't rely on many assump
Andreas Tille wrote / napísal(a):
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
I know there is backports.org -however this, and the testing,
unstable, stable, volatile, experimental.. So many package versions,
so much duplicate work..
I do not think that the work between the things you m
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
I know there is backports.org -however this, and the testing, unstable,
stable, volatile, experimental.. So many package versions, so much duplicate
work..
I do not think that the work between the things you mentioned is really
duplicated.
I th
Ad testing,
in my experience, testing is not really good option for real work. There
are _platform_ changes going in testing, that leads to broken
dependencies and sometimes completely nonfunctional snapshots.
Therefore, I suggest _the_platform_ (libraries and so on) to remain
stable, just
The kernel, the X.org
I realise, that the kernel and X.org are somewhat delicate things,
because they affect both desktop and server. Changing them in the middle
of release life, might not sound too well.
However, at least by the means of the kernel, the server world also
needs new hardware
Hi,
Ad backports importance,
I know there is backports.org -however this, and the testing, unstable,
stable, volatile, experimental.. So many package versions, so much
duplicate work.. Other hand, there's nothing "official" and
"recommended" excepting the stable. Using anything else, You're
Seg, 2007-05-14 às 17:03 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen escreveu:
> Interesting analysis, with several good points on keeping the stable
> release working with newer hardware and keeping the software selection
> relevant. But my first impression after reading your long text is
> that you are ignoring
[Peter Tuharsky]
> Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$
> refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even
> worse, abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu? Why do most people consider
> Debian to be user-unfriendly and server-oriented distro?
Interest
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:55:40PM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$
> refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even
> worse, abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu? Why do most people consider
> Debian to be u
Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$
refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even worse,
abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu? Why do most people consider Debian to
be user-unfriendly and server-oriented distro?
Debian developers often see "U
Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$
refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even worse,
abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu? Why do most people consider Debian to
be user-unfriendly and server-oriented distro?
Debian developers often see "U
70 matches
Mail list logo
