[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How automatic are backport package updates?



On Sat, 9 Jan 2021, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> In practice several important packages are updated quite regularly: 
[…]

Note that packages being updated is not always a good thing.
Having the stability of a tested set to rely on is also
appreciated. It’s also more important to have the security
and important bug fixes in stable (even if backporting is
easier) and for users to look at the Debian revisions and
the security tracker (not just the upstream versions).

I’m also telling application developers to please not just
pip/npm/… install something because they do NOT necessarily
need “that” newer version RIGHT NOW, they can use the older
one that’s available for stable users as well.

> > switching to Debian Unstable.

That, or testing. Debian testing is delayed and often gets
security updates the latest (though, if time for security
updates is your metric, an LTS or ELTS distro, that is,
jessie or stretch currently, is your best bet unfortunately)
but you will suffer from less package uninstallability problems.

In practice (see below) unstable suffices.

> Debian unstable can be quite usable, provided that you are willing to 
> 
>   1. Invest the time to familiarise yourself with APT and friends (dpkg, 
>   aptitude, apt-listbugs, etc.), the Debian Bug Tracking System (BTS), 

Right, but the #1 maxime for “sudo apt-get --purge dist-upgrade” in
unstable is to never just press Enter (also to *not* run unattended-
updates). Other than that, and the “let’s better skip updating right
now”, unstable has been *extremely* usable as a to-go daily distro
for years.

>   2. Can deal with unexpected issues, ranging from some package randomly 
>   crashing to an unbootable system (rare, but does happen).

Right, rare but happens.

> After all, unstable users are something like beta testers for the 
> distribution ;)

Yes and no… it depends on the package maintainers (DDs, DMs, etc.)
but having run primarily unstable (stable only on “important” VMs
or servers) for years now, I’ve found that less and less true.

Nowadays it’s more like, unstable is the equivalent of those rolling
distros (Arch/Void/CentOS Stream/…) and stable is the equivalent of
something like RHEL (except it offers about 30 times the amount of
software to install). So, for people who are really GNU/Linux users,
not GUI/DE users, I tend to recommend unstable first.

(I also have chroots with various other releases to fulfill specific
needs… had one for KDE 3 for a long time, and I have one with stable
now for a software that needs Python 2, and to test backports, and
nōn-Debian distros, to test or run stuff there, if not on a VM.)

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235
HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg

*************************************************

Mit unserem Consulting bieten wir Unternehmen maßgeschneiderte Angebote in
Form von Beratung, Trainings sowie Workshops in den Bereichen
Softwaretechnologie, IT Strategie und Architektur, Innovation und Umsetzung
sowie Agile Organisation.

Besuchen Sie uns auf https://www.tarent.de/consulting .
Wir freuen uns auf Ihren Kontakt.

*************************************************


Reply to: