Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
This is a good point, and it actually leads to an interesting idea for a package
that would take care of this issue. Now, this is NOT an easy project, but, what
about a package that has a list of the config files for ALL the packages, and
would back up what is needed to restore a system to normal from a clean install?
To have just the shadow, passwd, and the confs for all the different packages,
we could back up just these files. Then, reinstall from scratch, ignore
configurations, because the restore of the config files would handle it all.
Some would say that this should be handled manually, but it would make it nice,
and it's something that no other distribution has considered doing. Having to
manually back up "key files" is a major nuisance.
Dave Bristel
targon@targonia.com
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Seth M. Landsman wrote:
> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:22:59 -0500
> From: "Seth M. Landsman" <seth@job.cs.brandeis.edu>
> To: renfro@tntech.edu
> Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr>,
> Robert Woodcock <rcw@debian.org>,
> Edward Betts <edward@hairnet.demon.co.uk>,
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
> Resent-Date: 17 Mar 1999 20:22:15 -0000
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
>
> > > > If you need your machine for "real work" then you shouldn't be running
> > > > unstable.
> > >
> > > If debian unstable isn't tested on machines used for real work,
> > > debian is going to end up a toy distribution which is only suitable for
> > > work on systems which aren't appropriate for real work.
> >
> > If your only PC to do "real work" on is running an ever-changing,
> > developer-suited version of Debian, then you're really asking for some
> > "mission-critical" failures. Not having at least a fairly recent backup
> > before upgrading critical libraries is ridiculous, and it doesn't take a
> > developer to know that (I offer myself as evidence on that point).
>
> Okay, let's not turn this into a flame war. My point is that
> breakages in unstable are *REALLY BAD THINGS*. Yes, they happen, but the
> attitude that this one comes with is one of "it's your problem for trying
> unstable, not ours". If you manage to alienate the community of people
> who do real work, debian won't be tested on real work machines and won't
> be as stable as it should be. You haven't addressed this point.
> Oh, and my 20 gig DDS is in the shop. Sorry, telling people "back
> up often" is getting less realistic. The fact is, my important stuff is
> backed up in five places, but reinstalling is still a pita.
>
> > Hell, I got bit by a similar problem when Slink had been frozen for
> > several weeks (that __register_frame_info business). I had a backup; one
> > rescue floppy and a massive 'tar -zxvpf' later, I was back in business.
> >
> > Yes, potato needs to undergo real-world testing. So if you have an extra
> > machine, run your real work in parallel on potato and slink. But to place
> > so much trust in others' testing that you'll put your vital stuff solely
> > on potato is probably overoptimistic and misguided.
>
> Most people don't have that extra machine sitting around.
>
> -Seth
> --
> "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion"
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: