Re: amdgpu broken on bookworm?
On Sat 28 Aug 2021 at 08:36:32 (-0400), songbird wrote:
> Jeffrey Chimene wrote:
>
> just to note that using "bookworm" in your subject line can
> give the implication that "bookworm" is actually released which
> it hasn't. it is much better to use the keyword "testing" in
> the subject line instead.
I don't know where you got that from. A Release gets a *number*.
(The number that might be given to trixie will depend on how
superstitious the Debian release team is.) It's legitimate to talk
about, say, features that might be retained in bookworm, but dropped
by trixie. That's what the codenames are for.
> > Any debugging tips?
>
> it does not take that much space to set up a separate
> partition for stable on a system to keep a working version
> available and for comparison. this is what i do.
Ditto, except that typically mine are stable and oldstable.
Since a fortnight ago, they've become oldstable and oldoldstable.
See? Rather ambiguous. (They're buster and stretch.)
To interpret "testing" in an arbitrary post, I have to consult
my file listing the release dates of Debian suites.
0.01 1993-08
0.90 1993-12
0.91 1994-01
0.93R5 1995-03
0.93R6 1995-10-26
1.0 unreleased
buzz 1.1 1996-06-17
rex 1.2 1996-12-12
bo 1.3 1997-07-02/-06-05
hamm 2.0 1998-07-24
slink 2.1 1999-03-09
potato 2.2 2000-08-15
woody 3.0 2002-07-19
sarge 3.1 2005-06-06
etch 4.0 2007-04-08
lenny 5.0 2009-02-14
squeeze 6.0 2011-02-06
wheezy 7 2013-05-04
jessie 8 2015-04-25
stretch 9 2017-06-17
buster 10 2019-07-06
bullseye 11 2021-08-14
bookworm
trixie
sid (when woody started)
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: