Re: Problems with 1.2.1
On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Richard Jones wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> typed:
> > On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Richard Jones wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Unfortunately I don't have time to do another fresh install, so unfortunately
> > > due to the non-standard install method (which sounds like it was definately
> > > part of the problem), all the data I collected on the install process is
> > > pretty useless as far as putting in reliable bug reports goes :(...but maybe
> > > someone else doing a fresh install the right way could use some of the notes
> > > as a cross-reference for any probs they have.
> > >
> > You should not need to start over at this point. From what I know about
> > the distribution, most of the problems you have had, have to do with
> > dependency infelicities in various packages. As far as I know, all of
> > these can be dealt with on a package by package basis. You will find good
> > support here for helping you through these rough spots. Learning to deal
> > with the class of problems you are encountering will boost your
> > confidence in the system and increase your ability to have some fun with
> > this product.
> >
>
> Sorry, you misunderstood me, I managed to wade through the dependency problems
> fairly quickly (most of them were the same as for 1.2). What I meant by no
> time for a fresh install was that due to my broken upgrade method it was
> difficult to tell which problem were my fault and which were the packages
> fault, thus making accurate bug reports difficult. This could have only been
> clarified by a fresh install which I had neither the time or space for (my box
> is permanently net connected and thus I try to avoid downtime as much as
> possible).
I pretty much understood, and we certainly could use the feedback. I just
wanted to make sure you weren't going to throw away the work you had
already done, in the hope that it would go better next time.
>
> Another point made in the original post was that calling 1.2 (and 1.2.1)
> stable seems to be one giant misnomer. They are installable if you have used
> linux before and/or have access to the mailing list, but others not in these
> groups would struggle (IMO). I haven't used the developement release but I
> have a feeling it could be just as stable if not more so than the "stable"
> releases, as many of the "unstable" packages released seem to be upstream
> bug-fixes that dont go directly into stable for some reason, also many of
> these dependency problems appear to be caused by packages being built on the
> developement system
> (hence depending on stuff like libraries that are not yet available on
> "stable"), thus not always being fully compatable with the stable tree.
>
I have been unhappy with these labels, because of the unreasonable
expectation it gives a novice. They were chosen because it was percieved
to be the best way to tell the novice which area of the archive was "safe"
to use.
As soon as someone has any problems with package installation, they begin
to become confused about how "stable" the system really is.
If you think about your personal experience, you will see that you really
do have a "stable system". Almost all problems at this point deal with
application packages. (Yes there are a couple of nits in system areas)
You will note that 1.2 is almost twice as large as 1.1 was. This is the
result of many new maintainers, packaging many new packages. This
combination results in confusion, uncertainty and mistakes.
The first rule of publishing: Don't let the writer proof his/her own work.
Yet, we as maintainers, are the first to test our packages, and in some
cases, no other test occurs untill the general user gets to try it out.
We do have several folks who do "new installs" to test things out, but
many of the problems users have are due to their particular hardware
configuration.
As a result of these factors, we must depend upon our user base to "find"
the other problems.
Understand: You may not be getting a product that installs as easily as M$
products, but you get two very important features not provided by
proprietary software...Great support, and the chance of seeing the product
fixed within your lifetime. More than that, you get a product that YOU can
fix, even if no one else will.
Luck,
Dwarf
------------ --------------
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: