I'm currently trying out both Debian and Ubuntu on my MacBook to see which
one I prefer.
Right now, I'm currently liking Debian better - the stability seems better,
and it seems easier to customize
- but I need to run software that's newer than what's in etch (not for a
lust for bleeding-edge, but simply for the reason
that my MacBook won't suspend or do proper power management in any kernel
older than 2.6.22). I also want to be
able to get updated packages such as the newest Firefox...er..Iceweasel
(still hate that name, would prefer something
less silly).

I know the easy Debian solution is to run testing/unstable - it seems like
most people do. However, then you lose the advantage of
stability. I actually tried testing and unstable, but found a critical bug
pertaining to my video card - my system likes to reboot on suspend with the
new Xorg drivers (yes, dutifully reported it to BTS). For this reason, I
figure I'll confine Lenny/Sid to a VM or chroot, and I've been looking into
backports. However, backports.org doesn't seem to have what I need (it only
has 2.6.21 kernel, doesn't have the new acpi-support, not to mention some
extra gstreamer plugins I wanted). What would be the ideal solution for
me? Is there a reliable way to roll my own backports using apt to pull in
dependencies? Can I build from Sid sources on an as-needed basis? I've
come across a tool called "apt-build" which pulls down dependencies and
builds from source - is it what I need? What should I put in my sources.list
?

On a side note, I will say that the one area I think FOSS lags behind
Windows and Mac is in updating individual system components. I LIKE being
able to update a few things without hackish solutions (i.e. build from
source tarballs) or updating my whole system. You can do it easily on
Mac/Windows, but it's quite difficult and unreliable on nearly every
distribution. I think Debian really ought to look into making backports an
official project and integrating it into the stable release as a way to get
updates on an as-needed basis. It may even be an interesting idea to do
point releases of stable with some backports included. Has this ever been
discussed? It seems a lot better than simply speeding up the release
cycle...

Tim Hull wrote:

> I'm currently trying out both Debian and Ubuntu on my MacBook to see which
> one I prefer.
> Right now, I'm currently liking Debian better - the stability seems
> better, and it seems easier to customize
> - but I need to run software that's newer than what's in etch (not for a
> lust for bleeding-edge, but simply for the reason
> that my MacBook won't suspend or do proper power management in any kernel
> older than 2.6.22). I also want to be
> able to get updated packages such as the newest Firefox...er..Iceweasel
> (still hate that name, would prefer something
> less silly).
>
> I know the easy Debian solution is to run testing/unstable - it seems like
> most people do. However, then you lose the advantage of
> stability. I actually tried testing and unstable, but found a critical
> bug pertaining to my video card - my system likes to reboot on suspend
> with the
> new Xorg drivers (yes, dutifully reported it to BTS). For this reason, I
> figure I'll confine Lenny/Sid to a VM or chroot, and I've been looking
> into
> backports. However, backports.org doesn't seem to have what I need (it
> only has 2.6.21 kernel, doesn't have the new acpi-support, not to mention
> some
> extra gstreamer plugins I wanted). What would be the ideal solution for
> me? Is there a reliable way to roll my own backports using apt to pull in
> dependencies? Can I build from Sid sources on an as-needed basis? I've
> come across a tool called "apt-build" which pulls down dependencies and
> builds from source - is it what I need? What should I put in my
> sources.list ?
>
> On a side note, I will say that the one area I think FOSS lags behind
> Windows and Mac is in updating individual system components. I LIKE being
> able to update a few things without hackish solutions (i.e. build from
> source tarballs) or updating my whole system. You can do it easily on
> Mac/Windows, but it's quite difficult and unreliable on nearly every
> distribution. I think Debian really ought to look into making backports
> an official project and integrating it into the stable release as a way to
> get
> updates on an as-needed basis. It may even be an interesting idea to do
> point releases of stable with some backports included. Has this ever been
> discussed? It seems a lot better than simply speeding up the release
> cycle...
Hi Tim,
Have you looked at apt-pinning? I think this gives you exactly what you're
looking for. I personally don't find using testing loses me any stability
but that's just my opinion. There's a simple introduction to apt-pinning
that you can find here:
http://jaqque.sbih.org/kplug/apt-pinning.html
This may do the trick for you.
Cheers,
Jonathan
--
Registerd Linux user #445917 at http://counter.li.org/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

I know about that, but then you have to pull stuff like glibc etc from
unstable...

On 7/27/07, Jonathan Kaye <jdkaye10@yahoo.es> wrote:
>
> Tim Hull wrote:
>
> > I'm currently trying out both Debian and Ubuntu on my MacBook to see
> which
> > one I prefer.
> > Right now, I'm currently liking Debian better - the stability seems
> > better, and it seems easier to customize
> > - but I need to run software that's newer than what's in etch (not for a
> > lust for bleeding-edge, but simply for the reason
> > that my MacBook won't suspend or do proper power management in any
> kernel
> > older than 2.6.22). I also want to be
> > able to get updated packages such as the newest Firefox...er..Iceweasel
> > (still hate that name, would prefer something
> > less silly).
> >
> > I know the easy Debian solution is to run testing/unstable - it seems
> like
> > most people do. However, then you lose the advantage of
> > stability. I actually tried testing and unstable, but found a critical
> > bug pertaining to my video card - my system likes to reboot on suspend
> > with the
> > new Xorg drivers (yes, dutifully reported it to BTS). For this reason,
> I
> > figure I'll confine Lenny/Sid to a VM or chroot, and I've been looking
> > into
> > backports. However, backports.org doesn't seem to have what I need (it
> > only has 2.6.21 kernel, doesn't have the new acpi-support, not to
> mention
> > some
> > extra gstreamer plugins I wanted). What would be the ideal solution
> for
> > me? Is there a reliable way to roll my own backports using apt to pull
> in
> > dependencies? Can I build from Sid sources on an as-needed basis? I've
> > come across a tool called "apt-build" which pulls down dependencies and
> > builds from source - is it what I need? What should I put in my
> > sources.list ?
> >
> > On a side note, I will say that the one area I think FOSS lags behind
> > Windows and Mac is in updating individual system components. I LIKE
> being
> > able to update a few things without hackish solutions (i.e. build from
> > source tarballs) or updating my whole system. You can do it easily on
> > Mac/Windows, but it's quite difficult and unreliable on nearly every
> > distribution. I think Debian really ought to look into making backports
> > an official project and integrating it into the stable release as a way
> to
> > get
> > updates on an as-needed basis. It may even be an interesting idea to
> do
> > point releases of stable with some backports included. Has this ever
> been
> > discussed? It seems a lot better than simply speeding up the release
> > cycle...
> Hi Tim,
> Have you looked at apt-pinning? I think this gives you exactly what you're
> looking for. I personally don't find using testing loses me any stability
> but that's just my opinion. There's a simple introduction to apt-pinning
> that you can find here:
> http://jaqque.sbih.org/kplug/apt-pinning.html
> This may do the trick for you.
> Cheers,
> Jonathan
> --
> Registerd Linux user #445917 at http://counter.li.org/
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>

Tim Hull wrote:

> I know about that, but then you have to pull stuff like glibc etc from
> unstable...
>
Hi Tim,
Please don't cc. to my personal addresss. I subscribe to this NG. I probably
don't understand what you're trying to do. You would only have to "pull
stuff like glibc" from unstable if (a) you were pinning to unstable rather
than, say, testing and (b) if the package you were looking to pin had that
particular version of glibc as a dependency. I guess I don't understand
what you want. Sorry.
Jonathan
--
Registerd Linux user #445917 at http://counter.li.org/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/27/07 12:26, Tim Hull wrote:
> I'm currently trying out both Debian and Ubuntu on my MacBook to see which
> one I prefer.
> Right now, I'm currently liking Debian better - the stability seems better,
> and it seems easier to customize
> - but I need to run software that's newer than what's in etch (not for a
> lust for bleeding-edge, but simply for the reason
> that my MacBook won't suspend or do proper power management in any kernel
> older than 2.6.22). I also want to be
> able to get updated packages such as the newest Firefox...er..Iceweasel
> (still hate that name, would prefer something
> less silly).
>
> I know the easy Debian solution is to run testing/unstable - it seems like
> most people do. However, then you lose the advantage of
> stability. I actually tried testing and unstable, but found a critical bug
> pertaining to my video card - my system likes to reboot on suspend with the
> new Xorg drivers (yes, dutifully reported it to BTS). For this reason, I
> figure I'll confine Lenny/Sid to a VM or chroot, and I've been looking into
> backports. However, backports.org doesn't seem to have what I need (it only
> has 2.6.21 kernel, doesn't have the new acpi-support, not to mention some
> extra gstreamer plugins I wanted). What would be the ideal solution for
> me? Is there a reliable way to roll my own backports using apt to pull in
> dependencies? Can I build from Sid sources on an as-needed basis? I've
> come across a tool called "apt-build" which pulls down dependencies and
> builds from source - is it what I need? What should I put in my sources.list
> ?

deb-src ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/debian unstable main \
contrib non-free

> On a side note, I will say that the one area I think FOSS lags behind
> Windows and Mac is in updating individual system components. I LIKE being
> able to update a few things without hackish solutions (i.e. build from
> source tarballs) or updating my whole system. You can do it easily on
> Mac/Windows, but it's quite difficult and unreliable on nearly every
> distribution.

This is the price you pay for Freedom.

> I think Debian really ought to look into making backports an
> official project and integrating it into the stable release as a way to get
> updates on an as-needed basis. It may even be an interesting idea to do
> point releases of stable with some backports included. Has this ever been
> discussed? It seems a lot better than simply speeding up the release
> cycle...

That would be the "volatile" branch. Since I run unstable, I have
no need for it, but Google might have some answers. If not, ask
debian-devel.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGqkAuS9HxQb37XmcRAu9KAJ9vEvVaXIxqbZObqdcvDk 8mIfSmZQCgp5lD
jmQo3qhkviG+sgWTmdxP2rg=
=VFvX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 01:26:31PM -0400, Tim Hull wrote:
> I'm currently trying out both Debian and Ubuntu on my MacBook to see which
> one I prefer.
> Right now, I'm currently liking Debian better - the stability seems better,
> and it seems easier to customize
> - but I need to run software that's newer than what's in etch (not for a
> lust for bleeding-edge, but simply for the reason
> that my MacBook won't suspend or do proper power management in any kernel
> older than 2.6.22). I also want to be
> able to get updated packages such as the newest Firefox...er..Iceweasel

So its bleeding-edge hardware.

Is it possilbe to pull in the kernel package from Lenny and install that
with dpkg or is it compiled against a newer libc?

OTOH, do you need suspend and power-management? When you use it, use
it; when you don't, shut it down.

Doug.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

It's a Core Duo MacBook that's over a year old, so not exactly bleeding
edge. That doesn't mean it doesn't take a few kernel revs for them to
figure things out, and this is definitely the case here. Also, the kernel
package from sid (Lenny's is 2.6.21) is compiled against glibc 2.6.

I guess what I am wondering is if I can build debs from the sid source on
etch and in a sense do my own backports. I may want to do this for a few
other packages as well, such as acpi-support (the newest version is needed
for suspend also)...

Regarding suspend - I need it. For one thing, my system gets REALLY HOT
with the lid closed over an extended period without suspend - to the point
where I have an extremely jittery trackpad when I start using it after
leaving it on lid closed. Also, I don't like waiting for it to boot...

For me, this is the one major dilemma of FOSS - updates are basically
all-or-nothing. You can't, for instance, stick with an old Xorg but have a
newer kernel and GNOME. I hope Debian brings the backports into the
official fold in the future - it seems that it would immensely with
this.

On 7/27/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <dtutty@porchlight.ca> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 01:26:31PM -0400, Tim Hull wrote:
> > I'm currently trying out both Debian and Ubuntu on my MacBook to see
> which
> > one I prefer.
> > Right now, I'm currently liking Debian better - the stability seems
> better,
> > and it seems easier to customize
> > - but I need to run software that's newer than what's in etch (not for a
> > lust for bleeding-edge, but simply for the reason
> > that my MacBook won't suspend or do proper power management in any
> kernel
> > older than 2.6.22). I also want to be
> > able to get updated packages such as the newest Firefox...er..Iceweasel
>
> So its bleeding-edge hardware.
>
> Is it possilbe to pull in the kernel package from Lenny and install that
> with dpkg or is it compiled against a newer libc?
>
> OTOH, do you need suspend and power-management? When you use it, use
> it; when you don't, shut it down.
>
> Doug.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>

Tim Hull wrote:

> On a side note, I will say that the one area I think FOSS lags behind
> Windows and Mac is in updating individual system components. I LIKE being
> able to update a few things without hackish solutions (i.e. build from
> source tarballs) or updating my whole system. You can do it easily on
> Mac/Windows, but it's quite difficult and unreliable on nearly every
> distribution.

IIUC, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Think of it this way. If the glibc (and certain similar packages) is not
upgraded, then installing individual packages is possible even in Linux (be
it via stable or via backports). This is the kind of situation you have in
windows/mac etc., where the core system is not upgraded (you always run
windows XP) and you install additional software on top of it. This is what
backports try to do. From your email, I assume you are well aware of its
functionality and limitations.

> I think Debian really ought to look into making backports
> an official project and integrating it into the stable release as a way to
> get updates on an as-needed basis.

Making backports official would be a good idea. However if it delays the
release of next stable branch, then I am not a big fan of it.

> It may even be an interesting idea to do
> point releases of stable with some backports included.

What about security support? Windows/Mac do not provide any security support
for all the individual packages that a user installs. Having official
backports or point releases as you call it is useless unless there is
security support. I think providing security support for all the point
releases needs quite a bit of man power.

hth
raju

--
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Yes, you CAN upgrade individual system components on Debian (or any
Linux/UNIX), but it's not really that simple, as you can't, for instance,
download "Debian etch" .debs of Xorg 7.2 (for instance).

Also, with my suggestion with respect to point releases - I don't mean
backporting *everything* - mainly the components that improve hardware
support (the kernel,Xorg, etc). I actually don't mind the current Debian
release cycle - it's just the fact that often, the release can be hard to
use on newer hardware.



On 7/27/07, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi <kamaraju@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
> Tim Hull wrote:
>
> > On a side note, I will say that the one area I think FOSS lags behind
> > Windows and Mac is in updating individual system components. I LIKE
> being
> > able to update a few things without hackish solutions (i.e. build from
> > source tarballs) or updating my whole system. You can do it easily on
> > Mac/Windows, but it's quite difficult and unreliable on nearly every
> > distribution.
>
> IIUC, you are comparing apples and oranges.
>
> Think of it this way. If the glibc (and certain similar packages) is not
> upgraded, then installing individual packages is possible even in Linux
> (be
> it via stable or via backports). This is the kind of situation you have in
> windows/mac etc., where the core system is not upgraded (you always run
> windows XP) and you install additional software on top of it. This is what
> backports try to do. From your email, I assume you are well aware of its
> functionality and limitations.
>
> > I think Debian really ought to look into making backports
> > an official project and integrating it into the stable release as a way
> to
> > get updates on an as-needed basis.
>
> Making backports official would be a good idea. However if it delays the
> release of next stable branch, then I am not a big fan of it.
>
> > It may even be an interesting idea to do
> > point releases of stable with some backports included.
>
> What about security support? Windows/Mac do not provide any security
> support
> for all the individual packages that a user installs. Having official
> backports or point releases as you call it is useless unless there is
> security support. I think providing security support for all the point
> releases needs quite a bit of man power.
>
> hth
> raju
>
> --
> Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
> http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/
> http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>

Tim Hull wrote:


> I guess what I am wondering is if I can build debs from the sid source on
> etch and in a sense do my own backports. I may want to do this for a few
> other packages as well, such as acpi-support (the newest version is needed
> for suspend also)...
>

Please do not top post.

It is very much possible to build your own backported packages. It is very
simple actually. For example, To build backport of texmacs 1.0.6.10 from
unstable for stable distribution, I used the following commands

cd ~/practice
apt-get source -t unstable texmacs
cd texmacs-1.0.6.10/
dch --distribution etch-backports -v 1:1.0.6.10-1~bpo.1 -b


The new changelog entry will look something like

texmacs (1:1.0.6.10-1~bpo.1) etch-backports; urgency=low

* Rebuild for Etch

-- Kamaraju Kusumanchi <kamaraju@gmail.com> Tue, 10 Jul 2007
14:09:08 -0400


$dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot


Change the commands appropriately depending on your need.

raju

--
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Tim Hull wrote:
> Yes, you CAN upgrade individual system components on Debian (or any
> Linux/UNIX), but it's not really that simple, as you can't, for
> instance, download "Debian etch" .debs of Xorg 7.2 (for instance).
>
> Also, with my suggestion with respect to point releases - I don't mean
> backporting *everything* - mainly the components that improve hardware
> support (the kernel,Xorg, etc). I actually don't mind the current
> Debian release cycle - it's just the fact that often, the release can
> be hard to use on newer hardware.
>
It is a good idea for possibility to install (and to be used during
installation) more recent kernel during installation of stable branch.
Before more than 1 year i could not install Sarge on DELL PowerEdge
Server due an unsupported SATA RAID controller and i was forced to
install testing - it was 7 months after Sarge release, but the server
was bought before this date.

>
>
> On 7/27/07, *Kamaraju S Kusumanchi* <kamaraju@bluebottle.com
> <mailto:kamaraju@bluebottle.com>> wrote:
>
> Tim Hull wrote:
>
> > On a side note, I will say that the one area I think FOSS lags
> behind
> > Windows and Mac is in updating individual system components. I
> LIKE being
> > able to update a few things without hackish solutions ( i.e.
> build from
> > source tarballs) or updating my whole system. You can do it
> easily on
> > Mac/Windows, but it's quite difficult and unreliable on nearly every
> > distribution.
>
> IIUC, you are comparing apples and oranges.
>
> Think of it this way. If the glibc (and certain similar packages)
> is not
> upgraded, then installing individual packages is possible even in
> Linux (be
> it via stable or via backports). This is the kind of situation you
> have in
> windows/mac etc., where the core system is not upgraded (you
> always run
> windows XP) and you install additional software on top of it. This
> is what
> backports try to do. From your email, I assume you are well aware
> of its
> functionality and limitations.
>
> > I think Debian really ought to look into making backports
> > an official project and integrating it into the stable release
> as a way to
> > get updates on an as-needed basis.
>
> Making backports official would be a good idea. However if it
> delays the
> release of next stable branch, then I am not a big fan of it.
>
> > It may even be an interesting idea to do
> > point releases of stable with some backports included.
>
> What about security support? Windows/Mac do not provide any
> security support
> for all the individual packages that a user installs. Having official
> backports or point releases as you call it is useless unless there is
> security support. I think providing security support for all the point
> releases needs quite a bit of man power.
>
> hth
> raju
>
> --
> Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
> http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/
> http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> <mailto:debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org>
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org <mailto:listmaster@lists.debian.org>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


You're still top-posting. Very Bad Manners.

On 07/27/07 15:57, Tim Hull wrote:
> It's a Core Duo MacBook that's over a year old, so not exactly bleeding
> edge. That doesn't mean it doesn't take a few kernel revs for them to
> figure things out, and this is definitely the case here.

Sooo... download a vanilla .22 kernel and build it yourself.

You've just got to do a little more yourself. It's the price of
freedom. And not that difficult.

> Also, the kernel
> package from sid (Lenny's is 2.6.21) is compiled against glibc 2.6.

That's just *not* correct. Totally Wrong, actually.

[snip]
>
> For me, this is the one major dilemma of FOSS - updates are basically
> all-or-nothing. You can't, for instance, stick with an old Xorg but have a
> newer kernel and GNOME. I hope Debian brings the backports into the
> official fold in the future - it seems that it would immensely with
> this.

If you want effortless, go back to OSX.

No, really. Very few people here will be upset that you want others
to do the grubby integration work. My wife certainly doesn't. And
that's *OK*.

Do you complain and whine because the Honda Civic only has a 1.8L
140HP motor? No, you rip it out and install a JDM H22 with high
performance exhaust manifold, intake, fuel rail, power steering
pump, racing gear shift, transmission cooler, intercooled
turbocharger, nitrous, etc.

IOW, *you* make the car run like *you* want it to run.

Same with Linux. Stick with stock, or get your fingernails dirty
and scrape your knuckles.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGqqP+S9HxQb37XmcRAgMOAJ4iViuU+If0m8Tjn/2AQtfBHrKEGACdHn+D
J4lTRFxDEUyw8uyQsy4qu5I=
=M2YI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

>
>
> Sooo... download a vanilla .22 kernel and build it yourself.
>
> You've just got to do a little more yourself. It's the price of
> freedom. And not that difficult.


I know perfectly well how to build a kernel. What I'm asking for here is a
way to do this the "Debian way" - i.e., through APT using the sid kernel
source (effectively making my own backports). Also, there is more than just
the kernel I need to build from lenny/sid - such as some gstreamer plugins
and the newest acpi-support. I'd MUCH prefer to do this through APT than
"the ugly old fashioned way". If I did that for every little piece of
software I wanted to upgrade, I'd end up with a nightmare on my hands when
upgrading to lenny...

Regarding the unstable kernel being built with glibc 2.6, I'll admit - I was
wrong on that. Ubuntu was the distribution that did that, not Debian.
However, I still have seen in many places that you should NEVER, NEVER
install sid packages on stable.

>
> If you want effortless, go back to OSX.
>
> No, really. Very few people here will be upset that you want others
> to do the grubby integration work. My wife certainly doesn't. And
> that's *OK*.



One argument that bothers me a bit is stating that all deficiencies are "the
price you pay for freedom" and recommending one go back to their former OS
if they can't handle it. This is the reason Linux isn't doing as well on the
desktop as it could. I must emphasize that I have no intention on leeching
off the community - if that was the case, I'd just go back to OS X. My post
was basically asking how to do a proper "Debian way" backport from sid
source - which seems possible, given that backports.org makes plenty of
them.

While I did point this out as a deficiency in Debian (and Linux in general),
I'm also open to ing fixing this. I was intending on submitting any
backports I did to backports.org, as well as possibly getting involved in
Debian development in other ways. I also reported all the bugs I found in
lenny/sid in the Debian BTS, and was planning on keeping a chroot/VM of sid
around to keep testing it. Now, however, I can't but wonder if some
other Linux distribution may be more receptive than Debian. This is a
problem which needs to be fixed - no other OS makes you update the whole
system or go through arcane source compilation to update a single component.

Tim Hull wrote:

> However, backports.org doesn't seem to have what I need (it
> only has 2.6.21 kernel, doesn't have the new acpi-support, not to mention
> some extra gstreamer plugins I wanted).

According to http://www.backports.org/dokuwiki/do...?id=contribute
backports are built only for packages that are in testing. kernel 2.6.22 is
not yet in testing. Only 2.6.21 is in testing. That might be the reason why
you cannot find any backports for 2.6.22. Sorry if you are already aware of
this criterion.


hth
raju

--
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/28/07 11:00, Tim Hull wrote:
[snip]
>
> One argument that bothers me a bit is stating that all deficiencies are "the
> price you pay for freedom" and recommending one go back to their former OS
> if they can't handle it. This is the reason Linux isn't doing as well on the
> desktop as it could. I must emphasize that I have no intention on leeching
> off the community - if that was the case, I'd just go back to OS X. My post
> was basically asking how to do a proper "Debian way" backport from sid
> source - which seems possible, given that backports.org makes plenty of
> them.
>
> While I did point this out as a deficiency in Debian (and Linux in general),
> I'm also open to ing fixing this. I was intending on submitting any
> backports I did to backports.org, as well as possibly getting involved in
> Debian development in other ways. I also reported all the bugs I found in
> lenny/sid in the Debian BTS, and was planning on keeping a chroot/VM of sid
> around to keep testing it. Now, however, I can't but wonder if some
> other Linux distribution may be more receptive than Debian.

Ubuntu (and Fedora and possibly SuSE) releases on a 6 month schedule
for that very reason.

> This is a
> problem which needs to be fixed - no other OS makes you update the whole
> system or go through arcane source compilation to update a single component.

Neither do Testing or Sid.

ISTM, though, that you are missing the point of Stable.

http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-get...s-updatestable

No new functionality is added to the stable release. Once
a Debian version is released and tagged `stable' it will
only get security updates. That is, only packages for which
a security vulnerability has been found after the release
will be upgraded. All the security updates are served through
security.debian.org.

Security updates serve one purpose: to supply a fix for a
security vulnerability. They are not a method for sneaking
additional changes into the stable release without going through
normal point release procedure. Consequently, fixes for packages
with security issues will not upgrade the software. The Debian
Security Team will backport the necessary fixes to the version
of the software distributed in `stable' instead.

This is how the people who make Debian want it to be. Ubuntu,
Fedora/RH or SUSE may be better suited to you.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGq3h5S9HxQb37XmcRApE2AJ9Iu5MmLPlLJfP9E4BYup SlroAeJwCfQ3md
W231hJklI5syXe14eOeMmZI=
=Ugym
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

>
>
> ISTM, though, that you are missing the point of Stable.
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-get...s-updatestable
>
> No new functionality is added to the stable release. Once
> a Debian version is released and tagged `stable' it will
> only get security updates. That is, only packages for which
> a security vulnerability has been found after the release
> will be upgraded. All the security updates are served through
> security.debian.org.
>
> Security updates serve one purpose: to supply a fix for a
> security vulnerability. They are not a method for sneaking
> additional changes into the stable release without going through
> normal point release procedure. Consequently, fixes for packages
> with security issues will not upgrade the software. The Debian
> Security Team will backport the necessary fixes to the version
> of the software distributed in `stable' instead.
>
> This is how the people who make Debian want it to be. Ubuntu,
> Fedora/RH or SUSE may be better suited to you.
>
> - --
> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> Jefferson LA USA
>
> I understand the point of Debian stable - and I understand why most other
distros (beside RHEL and the other "enterprise" distros) use a 4-6 month
cycle. However, I don't see why this much be mutually exclusionary with
pulling selected updates down on an "as-needed" basis. On Windows and OS X,
one can easily update, say, OpenOffice.org or Firefox without updating the
whole system.
On Linux distributions, however, you either have to wait for the next distro
release (whether that be 4 months or 12 months) or use hackish solutions
only a Gentoo user could love. Of course, I could just use OS X (or
Windows) but that's not the point - I like the tweakability/freedom of
Linux, but I just want to be able to update, for instance, my kernel or ACPI
packages separate from my glibc and Xorg without leaving the realm of the
package system.
In any case, this is probably best reserved for the -devel list, as it has
gone outside the scope of my main question (how to make backports) and into
the realm of release cycles etc.

Tim Hull writes:
> On Linux distributions, however, you either have to wait for the next
> distro release (whether that be 4 months or 12 months) or use hackish
> solutions only a Gentoo user could love.

On Debian you can use backports.org.

> I like the tweakability/freedom of Linux, but I just want to be able to
> update, for instance, my kernel ... separate from my glibc and Xorg
> without leaving the realm of the package system.

You can do that with Microsoft Windows and OSX?

> In any case, this is probably best reserved for the -devel list, as it
> has gone outside the scope of my main question (how to make backports)

apt-get build-dep packagename; apt-get source --build packagename

man apt-get
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/28/07 12:28, Tim Hull wrote:
>>
>> ISTM, though, that you are missing the point of Stable.
>>
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-get...s-updatestable
>>
>> No new functionality is added to the stable release. Once
>> a Debian version is released and tagged `stable' it will
>> only get security updates. That is, only packages for which
>> a security vulnerability has been found after the release
>> will be upgraded. All the security updates are served through
>> security.debian.org.
>>
>> Security updates serve one purpose: to supply a fix for a
>> security vulnerability. They are not a method for sneaking
>> additional changes into the stable release without going through
>> normal point release procedure. Consequently, fixes for packages
>> with security issues will not upgrade the software. The Debian
>> Security Team will backport the necessary fixes to the version
>> of the software distributed in `stable' instead.
>>
>> This is how the people who make Debian want it to be. Ubuntu,
>> Fedora/RH or SUSE may be better suited to you.
>>
>> - --
>> Ron Johnson, Jr.
>> Jefferson LA USA
>>
>> I understand the point of Debian stable - and I understand why most other
> distros (beside RHEL and the other "enterprise" distros) use a 4-6 month
> cycle. However, I don't see why this much be mutually exclusionary with
> pulling selected updates down on an "as-needed" basis. On Windows and OS X,
> one can easily update, say, OpenOffice.org or Firefox without updating the
> whole system.

That's not true.

These links have pre-compiled Linux binaries with suitably old
system software requirements:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/thunderbird/
http://download.openoffice.org/2.2.1/index.html

Many sites (especially Sourceforge projects) also have pre-compiled
RPM packages, and some have debs.

And then there are these RPM search sites:
http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/
http://rpm.pbone.net/

> On Linux distributions, however, you either have to wait for the next distro
> release (whether that be 4 months or 12 months) or use hackish solutions
> only a Gentoo user could love. Of course, I could just use OS X (or
> Windows) but that's not the point - I like the tweakability/freedom of
> Linux, but I just want to be able to update, for instance, my kernel or ACPI
> packages separate from my glibc and Xorg without leaving the realm of the
> package system.
> In any case, this is probably best reserved for the -devel list, as it has
> gone outside the scope of my main question (how to make backports) and into
> the realm of release cycles etc.

You'll get the same answers as you got from me (in a range of
politenesses).

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGq4ntS9HxQb37XmcRApU/AJ9HycbKIL816c5W6slURAONn4Zb9gCgguKk
v1xQHCas01SoUz7KT7rgMfY=
=390J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Tim Hull wrote:
>> I understand the point of Debian stable - and I understand why most other
> distros (beside RHEL and the other "enterprise" distros) use a 4-6 month
> cycle. However, I don't see why this much be mutually exclusionary with
> pulling selected updates down on an "as-needed" basis. On Windows and OS X,
> one can easily update, say, OpenOffice.org or Firefox without updating the
> whole system.

Which, of course, are applications, and not part of the operating
system. There's no real problem in compiling a different Firefox or
OOo than a version of Debian currently contains. And the only reason
you need to compile at all, rather than use a precompiled binary, is
that Windows is one particular proprietary product, and GNU-Linux
isn't. The different Debian distributions are no more alike than Vista
and XP, and there's no reason why system components from one should
'just work' in the other. Would you expect to drop the Vista scheduler
into the XP kernel and have it work? Would you expect Microsoft to
produce a specifically compiled version of the Vista scheduler which
*would* work in XP?

> On Linux distributions, however, you either have to wait for the next distro
> release (whether that be 4 months or 12 months) or use hackish solutions
> only a Gentoo user could love. Of course, I could just use OS X (or
> Windows) but that's not the point - I like the tweakability/freedom of
> Linux, but I just want to be able to update, for instance, my kernel or ACPI
> packages separate from my glibc and Xorg without leaving the realm of the
> package system.

So just how many packages would that be, to accommodate every possible
combination of compilers, libraries and operating system components?
Just to save you the inconvenience of the odd compilation if you want
something that doesn't currently exist as a package?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Tim Hull wrote:

>>
>>
>> ISTM, though, that you are missing the point of Stable.
>>
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-get...s-updatestable
>>
>> No new functionality is added to the stable release. Once
>> a Debian version is released and tagged `stable' it will
>> only get security updates. That is, only packages for which
>> a security vulnerability has been found after the release
>> will be upgraded. All the security updates are served through
>> security.debian.org.
>>
>> Security updates serve one purpose: to supply a fix for a
>> security vulnerability. They are not a method for sneaking
>> additional changes into the stable release without going through
>> normal point release procedure. Consequently, fixes for packages
>> with security issues will not upgrade the software. The De