Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Debian 11 “bullseye” freeze started

lists.debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Debian 11 “bullseye” freeze started

#71

Post by jabl »

mappu wrote: post #25
Mathnerd314 wrote: post #2

They're considering dropping i386, which is interesting. Does anyone know more about that?

Time64 is the death of i386 - the time_t structure needs to be expanded to 64-bit to handle dates beyond 2038, but that's an ABI break, and the primary reason anyone still runs 32-bit binaries is for closed-source games which won't come along for an ABI upgrade. You can either do the ABI break and lose most existing users when the main set of apps stop working, or have the main set of apps stop working anyway in 2038…

The kernel has already been fixed, but userspace (glibc) is AFAICS still in progress. Glibc is going to do it in a similar fashion to large file support (LFS), where if you define some particular macros you get the 64-bit time_t interfaces, otherwise you'll continue with the old 32-bit time_t. Similarly, existing binaries will continue to work, so in order to take advantage of 64-bit time_t you need to recompile (with those macros set, and fixing any resulting problems of course).

Re: Debian 11 “bullseye” freeze started

#72

Post by jabl »

ncmncm wrote: post #32
mappu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time64 is the death of i386 - the time_t structure needs to be expanded to 64-bit to handle dates beyond 2038, but that's an ABI break, and the primary reason anyone still runs 32-bit binaries is for closed-source games which won't come along for an ABI upgrade. You can either do the ABI break and lose most existing users when the main set of apps stop working, or have the main set of apps stop working anyway in 2038…

You could switch it to unsigned 32-bit time_t, and most things would still work right up to 2106. With any luck, civilization will collapse by 2038 and it won't matter anyway. But, struggling back up from collapse on scavenged 32-bit microcontrollers powered by scavenged solar panels, we won't need the extra burden of post-y2038. Switch to unsigned 32-bit time_t for the sake of the (surviving) grandkids.

You keep saying this, but you're too late. The 64-bit signed time_t path was already chosen long ago and is being implemented.

Re: Debian 11 “bullseye” freeze started

#73

Post by jabl »

shasheene wrote: post #50
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #31

Anyone care to list the "things they wish were different" ? Trying to remember how to build a package some months back I ran into all the old headaches. Debian packaging is ancient, and the packages don't provide all the information and functionality other package management formats do. Trying to contribute a package (much less write one) is a pain. The structure of the files and how to build them seems over-complica…

The author of i3 Windows Manager has a series of interesting blog posts about his pain points with Debian project. [1] Well worth reading the blog series. He also has a research distribution named 'distri' that tries to fix certain aspects of those pain points. [2] [1] https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2019-03-10-debian-windin... [2] https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2019-08-17-introducing-d...

> https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2019-03-10-debian-windin...

This is really an excellent post. While I'm not a debian developer, some of those challenges enumerated affect end users directly as well. Like plenty of packages being single-maintainer fiefdoms, with wildly different quality of maintenance.

Re: Debian 11 “bullseye” freeze started

#74

Post by hglee »

pmarin wrote: post #57
hglee wrote: post #29

i915 GPU freeze on kernel 5.x solved?

do you have a bug report link about this?

I got micro freeze on ThinkPad x260 + kernel 5.4.x + firefox.

You can find many reports like this:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1872001

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1843274

https://groups.google.com/g/linux.debian.bugs.dist/search?q=...

Re: Debian 11 “bullseye” freeze started

#76

Post by gautamcgoel »

realdense wrote: post #53

Some of the highlights (from my point of view) that have been frozen, according to the packaging website: Linux kernel 5.10 gcc 10.2 libc 2.31 Perl 5.32 And some non-essential packages that look to being included in the upcoming release (I'm sure there's plenty of other exciting inclusions that I've missed): GNOME 3.38 KDE Plasma 5.20 Xfce 4.16 LXQt 0.16 MATE 1.24 Cinnamon 4.8 Apache httpd 2.4.46 Python 3.9 LibreOffi…

Which website are you looking at? The release notes I saw said Bullseye would use the 4.19 kernel. I expect them to use a LTS kernel, so I'd be a bit surprised if they choose 5.10.

Re: Debian 11 “bullseye” freeze started

#77

Post by misev »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #76
realdense wrote: post #53

Some of the highlights (from my point of view) that have been frozen, according to the packaging website: Linux kernel 5.10 gcc 10.2 libc 2.31 Perl 5.32 And some non-essential packages that look to being included in the upcoming release (I'm sure there's plenty of other exciting inclusions that I've missed): GNOME 3.38 KDE Plasma 5.20 Xfce 4.16 LXQt 0.16 MATE 1.24 Cinnamon 4.8 Apache httpd 2.4.46 Python 3.9 LibreOffi…

Which website are you looking at? The release notes I saw said Bullseye would use the 4.19 kernel. I expect them to use a LTS kernel, so I'd be a bit surprised if they choose 5.10.

5.10 is LTS

Re: Debian 11 “bullseye” freeze started

#78

Post by Anthony-G »

jabl wrote: post #73
shasheene wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of i3 Windows Manager has a series of interesting blog posts about his pain points with Debian project. [1] Well worth reading the blog series. He also has a research distribution named 'distri' that tries to fix certain aspects of those pain points. [2] [1] https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2019-03-10-debian-windin... [2] https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2019-08-17-introducing-d...

> https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2019-03-10-debian-windin... This is really an excellent post. While I'm not a debian developer, some of those challenges enumerated affect end users directly as well. Like plenty of packages being single-maintainer fiefdoms, with wildly different quality of maintenance.

I thought they were both excellent, thoughtful posts. Not being an i3 user, I wasn’t previously aware of Michael Stapelberg but I like the way he’s willing to work on solutions that he has identified, e.g., he offered to create proper archives for the Debian mailing lists.

His proposal for speeding up package management also seems like a useful project. If only he had the same political clout as other prominent FOSS developers.

Re: Debian 11 “bullseye” freeze started

#79

Post by dagw »

bayindirh wrote: post #66
shasheene wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ubuntu at least does it in alphabetical order of the first letter of the codename. Eg, the release after Ubuntu 20.04 Focal was Ubuntu 20.10 Groovy. This means that hearing the Ubuntu codename "Bionic" provides some information: it was 4 releases before Focal. But Debian codenames are arbitrarily based on characters from the movie Toy Story, so there's no relation to the Debian release. To fix this, I propose for fut…

Since debian both provide version numbers and codenames, I don't think making codename same as the release version makes any sense. When I google Debian 5, I get results to Debian Lenny (which is 5). Also Debian denotes versions in official notices and it's widespread in internet so, codenames are not hindering anything in practice. OTOH, codenames play a bigger role in the ecosystem. It adds motivation, fun and sens…

As someone who doesn't use Debian as my only (or even main) OS, but does manage a few Debian servers, I completely disagree on memorable. I can never remember the order of code names and whenever I read something like "stretch or later" I always have to Google to find out if the servers I have qualify or not.

Other than that, I have zero complaints about Debian

Re: Debian 11 “bullseye” freeze started

#80

Post by abrowne »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #27
abrowne wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure for mips? It says (emphasis added) > We have decided that the architectures that will be part of the bullseye release are: amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el and s390x (i.e. the same we had for buster minus mips ).

"mips64el, mipsel" Those are MIPS, but Little-Endian instead of Big-Endian.

Thanks, got it now, I was confused by the differing notations. (I thought the parenthetical was a description, not a name.) Listening to my MIPS internet radio now FWIW (Pure brand).
Post reply on HN