Re: How up to date is this?
Idar Tollefsen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I have some experinces to share with you and I would
> like som feedback on this.
>
> It all started when I wanted to install Dia
> (http://www.lysator.liu.se/~alla/dia/dia.html)
> The version for Potato/Alpha is currently 0.83, while
> Dia is out in 0.85. I tought nothing of this and installed
> 0.83 by using apt. However, there were some things from
> 0.85 that weren't present in 0.83, so I decided to go ahead
> and install 0.85 from source downloaded from before
> mentioned site. And here starts the real fun part.
>
> Where is gdk-pixbuf? I have installed all thinkable
> imlib, gtk and gnome development packages from the
> frozen Potato, but gdk-pixbuf is nowhere to be seen.
> I finally went out and got it from ftp.gnome.org
> and compiled and installed it myself.
IIRC, this is going to be part of GNOME 1.2, which is currently at 1.1.90, i.e.
not quite stable.
> What's up with libart? In /usr/include/libart_lgpl/include
> there is supposed to be a libart.h. It isn't there.
> I put it there myself by using a version of it I found
> on cvs.gnome.org. I did a cut and paste from that, only
> to find that the include files were included in incorret
> order.
The libart-dev package has all of the header files, static libs, .so symlink,
etc. In general, if you have a lib but can't build something that depends on
it, get the lib's -dev package.
> After a few testruns I managed to arrange them
> in an order that worked, at least for Dia.
>
> Then came libxml... Latest stable realse of libxml from
> ftp.gnome.org is 1.8.7. They even have a libxml2-* there!
> What is the version available with potato? libxml-dev
> from Debian is 1.8.2. Dia 0.85 required 1.8.5. I deinstalled
> 1.8.2 and compiled and installed 1.8.7 by hand.
Not sure but I'd guess this is time lag due to the freezes leading up to the
test cycle.
> I was now finally able to compile and install Dia 0.85.
Congratulations!
> However, this experince has left me with some questions.
> How up to date is Potato? Can this be explained by the
> fact that Potato has entered into a test cycle and is
> not beeing updated during this period? Or is this the
> expected state of this Debian release and I can look
> forward to more of the same?
I think the best answer is probably that Debian stable has very high quality
requirements, so packages should be tested for a while before being put into a
stable distribution. A few packages in alpha or beta stages might get in if
there are no alternatives, e.g. GNOME 0.3 in slink, and of course the "0." in
dia's version indicates a not-quite-stable release.
But something as profound as a change from imlib1 to gdk-pixbuf, which didn't
make it into the last releases of GNOME 1.0 and which would affect a large
number of packages, is not quite well-enough tested for Debian stable (though
don't quote me- you'll have to ask the Debian GNOME maintainers for the reason
for not including this particular package).
> I was thinking about Woody, but I was told that when
> Debian said unstable, they ment unstable (i.e. someone
> told me that at one point, even the gcc shipped with
> Woody didn't work). Also, I do appreciate stability,
> and Potato has been a dream so far. But I would like
> to see it kept up to date a little better than this.
Then you'll probably appreciate the "package pool" system under
discussion/development, which would create sets of packages which go through
testing before being added to stable, so for example if GNOME 1.2 is released in
a month, the package pool might hit Debian stable in two or so. Just
speculation, but early package pools might include the 2.4 kernel, X 4.0,
mozilla 1.0, etc.
This system is being developed to meet exactly the need you articulate here.
> I switched to Debian in the first place because I was
> impressed by the package system and the fact that so
> many maintainers are working to give us the best at
> all times. However, had the Dia package been up to
> date (the rest of course had to be updated first)
> I wouldn't have had to go trough this. And installing
> software by hand like this defeats the whole point
> wiht Debian's ingenious package and update system.
Another possibility is to build Debian source packages from Woody, on your
Potato system. To do this, add deb-src lines to your /etc/apt/sources.list in
the same format as the deb lines, do "apt-get update" and "apt-get source
*pkgname*". Then cd to the directory it creates and type "debian/rules build".
Most of the woody packages should build on potato, but if there's a dependency
on, say, a new glibc, then you're out of luck.
> Basically, I would like some pointers from the once
> who have used Debian for some time. I need to know
> how much of the same I can expect. Also I would like
> to know the difference between Slink, Potato and Woody
> with respect to how fast they are updated with new
> versions.
Slink: stable, almost never.
Potato: frozen and in testing, no updates until the test cycle is done, then
security fixes and other very important things.
Woody: whenever the maintainers put something new in. :-)
> Btw: Could someone tell me where the source for
> "procinfo" is to be found? It gives me the same
> floating point exception as gFTP did, so I was
> thinking to try to compile that too with -mieee.
You should be able to "apt-get source" with the binary or source package name to
get the source. How to find the binary package name? If you have it installed:
dpkg -S `which procinfo`
Otherwise:
wget http://http.us.debian.org/debian/dists/potato/Contents-alpha.gz
zcat Contents-alpha.gz | grep procinfo
Looks like sysutils.
Zeen,
-Adam P.
Reply to: