Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question

From: Monique Y. Mudama (spam_at_bounceswoosh.org)
Date: 06/23/04

  • Next message: Monique Y. Mudama: "Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question" 
    To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:35:48 -0600

    On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
    >>
    >>Yes, but there's no way to test those backports thoroughly enough to
    >>match the amount of testing that went into stable in the first place.
    >
    > Do you believe that?

    The point of stable is not just that each package has been tested to the nth
    degree, it's also that the system as a whole has been tested -- the
    complex web of interactions among packages. In order to accept these
    backports into stable, we either have to perform the same amount of
    testing *on the whole system* as we did to release stable in the first
    place, or the system can't be certified to be truly stable.

    When we change one line on the flight software where I work, we can't
    just test the unit that was changed and move on. We have to perform the
    complete system test all over again to make sure nothing unexpected
    happens. The same concept applies to servers.

    I've worked in environments where we didn't test the system after making
    "small" changes. It's not pretty.

    > I switched over from OS/2 to 5.0. I was surprised later to discover
    > people regarded it as buggy. I don't recall how much I used 6.0, but
    > where I work we still have a 7.0 box in place: I chose 7.0 over 7.1 so
    > as to have a 2.2 kernel as standard (required for a sat card).

    It seems odd to me to choose a release based on the kernel, but okay.
    It seems *very* odd that you're telling us that RedHat switched major
    kernel numbers for a minor release.

    > The most troublesome system I have is one running Woody, the video
    > regularly gets stuffed up and it's prone to losing its keyboard.
    >
    > Changing the graphics card made no difference.

    Is it possible it's the motherboard? Those are some weird problems.

    >>It sounds like a lot more work for the developers. RedHat had
    >>commercial customers to support their developers. How would you
    >>suggest Debian manage this?
    >>
    > I thnk Red Hat didn't have commercial customers when it started on
    > this model.

    No, but they were always a company looking to make money off of their
    product (not that there's anything wrong with that). Debian has no such
    plans, and that's one of the reasons why I trust them to do what's right
    rather than what's profitable. It's also one of the reasons it's been
    suggested as a reference implementation a number of times.

    Debian developers are hard-working folk, but it's hard to work full-time
    for free.

    > As I already said, there are enough developers doing enough work - the
    > packages are out there. What is missing official adoption by Debian,
    > and the coordination that would follow its adoption.

    No, what's missing is the testing infrastructure. *System* testing, not
    just the individual package.

    > If there was an official line of "built for Stable" packages
    > comprising packages people felt were needed, linked to from the
    > dowload page, be sure a lot of people would try them out.

    And now a lot of people who aren't motivated enough to do a google
    search or ask on d-u are installing packages that haven't been fully
    tested with the system. The status quo at least ensures that the people
    who are using backports have at a minimum the ability to research
    questions. 

    -- 
monique
-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Monique Y. Mudama: "Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Old versions [LONG - lots of comments added in reply]
      ... new packages to include relatively bleeding ... today's install is "testing" a while later ... ... release Debian 4.0 in December 2006 if all goes to plan. ... people can't live with this pace of change, hence backports - building ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
      ... >>people making these unofficial backports. ... >>came out with about the same frequencies as Debian releases. ... >It sounds like a lot more work for the developers. ... If there was an official line of "built for Stable" packages comprising ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
      ... one of the joys of Woody. ... Its main use is to backport packages to woody. ... While I disagree with much of the Debian project (before you ... >who are using backports have at a minimum the ability to research ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: branding debian releases
      ... >> the Debian system can accomodate that through the installation of ... Considering this is Debian, perhaps ... Backports being backports, they are not official Debian packages; ...
      (Debian-User)
    • unsubscribe
      ... > Subject: debian newbie... ... If I need to recompile the kernel, ... Also, what other additional packages, ... >> The package you're trying to install presumably ...
      (Debian-User)