Debian stable/unstable.
Hi folks. I'm just trying to find out what peoples feelings are with regard to the testing & unstable branches of Debian. I've added testing to my deb and deb-src lines in /etc/apt/sources.list. Mainly because I wanted a newer version of a package I use. I'd like to know A) if this is advisable B) if going all the way to unstable is advisable. What are the security patch repercussions? Regards -- Oliver Jones > Roving Code Warrior > www.deeperdesign.com
* Oliver Jones <oliver(a)deeperdesign.com> [2005-09-16 15:50]:
if going all the way to unstable is advisable.
No. unstable is for people who like having their machine broken when they upgrade packages. It doesn’t happen constantly, but often enough. Even testing is debatable; on a server I would *always* stick to stable, but for a desktop you can only pick between two evils. There are two other choices: Backports: Look for small focussed repositories that provide packages not in the base system. Last I tried this, the large repositories were more or less mutually exclusive, as dependencies on their packages led to conflicts. Source builds: You could try pinning to stable and adding testing and unstable only to use them for source builds. It’s a bit more work, but that way you can avoid importing dependencies on testing/unstable package versions that expand until they fill all available room.
What are the security patch repercussions?
You only get them for stable. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 11:45:07PM +1000, Oliver Jones wrote:
Hi folks.
I'm just trying to find out what peoples feelings are with regard to the testing & unstable branches of Debian. I've added testing to my deb and deb-src lines in /etc/apt/sources.list. Mainly because I wanted a newer version of a package I use.
I'd like to know A) if this is advisable If you are using Debian as a desktop system or exploring the newest server-side technology, testing is advisable. When stable is really out of date, some developers will put new version packages on http://backports.org. You can see that xorg is already there.
B) if going all the way to unstable is advisable. No, it's not advisable unless you are using Debian as a software development platform or just want to live on the bleeding edge.
What are the security patch repercussions? Currently, Debian have security support for both stable and testing. http://security.debian.org/ http://secure-testing-master.debian.net/
-- Best Regards, Carlos
* Carlos Liu <about.linux(a)gmail.com> [2005-09-16 18:25]:
Currently, Debian have security support for both stable and testing. http://security.debian.org/ http://secure-testing-master.debian.net/
Ohh, nice! Things do change, after all… Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 00:37 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Carlos Liu <about.linux(a)gmail.com> [2005-09-16 18:25]:
Currently, Debian have security support for both stable and testing. http://security.debian.org/ http://secure-testing-master.debian.net/
Ohh, nice! Things do change, after all…
secure-testing is a very recent development, only announced earlier this week. It still not recommended for use in a production environment, but at least it gives you some peace of mind. Regards -- Matt Brown matt(a)mattb.net.nz Mob +64 275 611 544 www.mattb.net.nz
If you are using Debian as a desktop system or exploring the newest server-side technology, testing is advisable. When stable is really
I'm using it on a server but it is not an "important business" server. It's just my play thing and will perhaps host a few Open Source projects I'm working on.
out of date, some developers will put new version packages on http://backports.org. You can see that xorg is already there.
I don't care about desktop stuff. But I don't want to be ancient software. I'm moving away from a RH 7.3 server because it is so ancient and nearly impossible to get recent versions of software for it.
Currently, Debian have security support for both stable and testing. http://security.debian.org/ http://secure-testing-master.debian.net/
I think I'll stick with tracking testing then. Regards -- Oliver Jones > Roving Code Warrior > www.deeperdesign.com
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 23:45 +1000, Oliver Jones wrote:
Hi folks.
I'm just trying to find out what peoples feelings are with regard to the testing & unstable branches of Debian. I've added testing to my deb and deb-src lines in /etc/apt/sources.list. Mainly because I wanted a newer version of a package I use.
I'd like to know A) if this is advisable
It's not advisable to mix stable / testing entries in sources.list without taking in other action to protect your system from harm. The testing entries will end up being favoured over the stable entries as the packages have newer version and you'll end up with basically a testing system with a bit of stable thrown in here and there. In other words a mess! There are ways around this, you can "pin" packages, and explicitly set the priority of testing to lower than that of stable. This means all packages are installed from stable (regardless of whether a newer version is available) unless you explicitly tell apt to install the package from testing. Notes on all this can be found at http://www.wlug.org.nz/AptNotes Pinning doesn't always work however, particularly in the case where you want to install a package that depends on a newer version of libc or some other crucial library. In these cases it is easier to do as has already been suggested and use a backport. Either one from a third party backport repository, or one that you've compiled yourself. HTH. Regards -- Matt Brown matt(a)mattb.net.nz Mob +64 275 611 544 www.mattb.net.nz
The testing entries will end up being favoured over the stable entries as the packages have newer version and you'll end up with basically a testing system with a bit of stable thrown in here and there. In other words a mess!
Yeah I guess so. I've added the pinning to my /etc/apt/preferences. How do I force apt-get/aptitude to use a testing repo for a particular package?
Pinning doesn't always work however, particularly in the case where you want to install a package that depends on a newer version of libc or some other crucial library. In these cases it is easier to do as has already been suggested and use a backport. Either one from a third party backport repository, or one that you've compiled yourself.
Well I doubt I'll be installing too much that requires advanced stuff. I'm pretty sure most of what I'm interested in will be in stable maybe require some stuff from testing. That's about it. Regards -- Oliver Jones > Roving Code Warrior > www.deeperdesign.com
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 23:09 +1000, Oliver Jones wrote:
Yeah I guess so. I've added the pinning to my /etc/apt/preferences. How do I force apt-get/aptitude to use a testing repo for a particular package?
apt-get <package> -t <distrib> or apt-get <package>/<distrib> or apt-get <package>=<version> I prefer the first form. HTH Cheers -- Matt Brown matt(a)mattb.net.nz Mob +64 275 611 544 www.mattb.net.nz
Oliver Jones wrote:
Hi folks.
I'm just trying to find out what peoples feelings are with regard to the testing & unstable branches of Debian. I've added testing to my deb and deb-src lines in /etc/apt/sources.list. Mainly because I wanted a newer version of a package I use.
I'd like to know A) if this is advisable B) if going all the way to unstable is advisable. What are the security patch repercussions?
I use unstable on my desktop at home. it doesn't run anything at all important, so I don't mind if it doesn't work, however I've never had any major issues with it, occasionally a few packages end up in funny states (you have a package with version n, and the dev package for n-1, so apt will refuse to let you upgrade either), but I usually just wait 24 hours then repeat the upgrade and everythings fine. I've never had problems with it interfering with my work. I would however recommend deb-listbugs and deb-changelog packages, they will warn you about any major problems/changes when you install/upgrade a package. I'm supposed to use aptitude, I don't, I use apt. The major difference (afaik) is that aptitude installs recommended packages by default, so I tend to manually install recommended packages myself.
participants (5)
-
A. Pagaltzis -
Carlos Liu -
Matt Brown -
Oliver Jones -
Perry Lorier