"This release includes numerous updated software packages"
... software packages which are already outdated.
Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
91–100 of 132 posts
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're running Ubuntu Desktop and want to run modern game systems like Steam then I think you'd want to stay on Ubuntu.
https://github.com/GhostSquad57/Steam-Installer-for-Wheezy
That's what I used for my Debian unstable + Mint "Steam box", it works perfectly.
P.S. Mint provides only Firefox.
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
/usr/local is meant to replicate /usr in the way that binaries go into /usr/local/bin, libraries into /usr/local/lib etc., but for software that isn’t managed by the package manager – at least that’s what it is used for nowadays. So a well-behaving software would happily go into /usr/local, whereas the ugly software things that want their own folder somewhere better go into /opt.
And why is that distinction important? It seems a fairly arbitrary rule to me. What's the problem with dropping stuff in /usr/local/foo?
It's not set in stone.
I also prefer having packages with their own hierarchies under /opt, rather than /usr/local/ -- in general stuff under /usr/local should put their binaries in /usr/local/bin -- their manpages under /usr/local/share/man, headers and libraries in the corresponding places -- so that I don't have to mess with my PATH settings to be able to run a command, look up a man page or link against a library.
Sometimes software isn't packaged for use on a posix-like system -- and then I might have to do some dancing to get it to work -- I usually prefer having such programs under /opt/.
I do have another folder under local: /usr/local/xstow -- so I can easily compile packages and manage different versions under /usr/local/xstow/package-x.y.z.
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#94"This release includes numerous updated software packages" ... software packages which are already outdated.
Funny how this is downvoted. Fact is that Debian has always been outdated. For some that is a strength, for most it is a frustration.
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, I've been running Debian "testing" on my machine since 2001-ish and I've never done anything special near releases. Except maybe rejoice at all the old packages finally getting upgraded. :-)
Didn't you run into any breakage of packages? I mean there's this mad rush into testing right after a new release. I'm thinking of running wheezy for a couple of months until the storm calms down.
For those running testing (or sid/experimental) I highly recommend apt-listbugs -- it will list (critical) bugs related to packages you're about to upgrade/install -- and allow you to back out. Often you can just hold off a few days, and some hardworking Debian volunteer will have made the problem go away -- before you need to experience it.
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've found the Debian package maintainers to be quite careful, even when there's a large amount of rapid change to testing. I think they put a lot of effort and thought into avoiding breakage, even in scenarios like this. Any time I've encountered broken packages, the problem has been resolved quite quickly, especially if more important and widely-used packages are involved.
I'm using a mix between unstable and Mint for a Steam box (games, music, movies, web) and found out the label must be mistaken. It's a minimal installation, but everything from ATI drivers to multi-arch support worked perfectly out of the box. It already went through several dist-upgrades without any manual intervention (except maybe a couple of "yes/no" questions).
When did you install? Testing/Unstable are relatively quiet during a freeze, so just wait till everybody realises that Wheezy is out and you should get plenty of breakage :)
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm unable to determine if you mean upstart to be a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing, or anything in between. To me, switching back from Ubuntu to Debian was a blessing. And I simply cannot understand this need to decrease boottimes. My laptop boots into Debian under 12 seconds. That is pretty fast. Under Ubuntu, I timed it at 10 seconds. 2 seconds boottime? Is that what this upstart/systemd hastle is all about? I just do…
""Well, let's say you can shave 10 seconds off of the boot time. Multiply that by five million users and thats 50 million seconds, every single day. Over a year, that's probably dozens of lifetimes. So if you make it boot ten seconds faster, you've saved a dozen lives. That's really worth it, don't you think?" " http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Saving_Lives.txt
I don't know. I mean, the trend has been hand-held devices and laptops for the past decade or so. They don't get booted every day and will be less and less. All the while, devices are getting faster hardware, making the difference even less.
Too me, it still seems not worth breaking a working standard (SysV) over.
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the Debian maintainer has any idea what he’s doing, then this is likely to be more stable than upgrading to a new release that introduces new features and possibly incompatibilities. Fortunately, most Debian maintainers have a very good idea of what they’re doing.
Likely yes. But if I had to choose between the original developers and someone that has to maintain 20 different packages, I will chose the original developers.
I imagine few maintainers to maintain 20 different packages, and if they do, they are likely related in some way – and then I trust a Debian maintainer more to gauge the impact of a new version on the system than some upstream maintainer, who likely even uses some other distribution.
But if that works for you, then great :-)
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
/opt is basically for 3rd parties to install software, because they can't be trusted to behave and integrate with the regular filesystem. The last thing you want is Oracle farking around with anything under /usr or /var, because they will fuck up your entire OS for their benefit alone. That is why /opt exists, in my understanding. /srv is a bit questionable to me. Basically it's another /var. I always used directorie…
Yeah, they could have gone down the /var/srv direction, which would have been OK. But I think /srv actually makes more sense as /var is often on separate disks because /var/lib/ gets very IO heavy.
In the days of SAN, all assumptions about separate filesystems should be revisited. They might be, in fact probably are, on the same spindles.
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Use Debian testing for the desktop. Desktop users don't use stable, or at least use it with backports. And what's so unbearable for the server? As others pointed out, RHEL ships even an earlier version of the kernel.
Testing is sometimes problematic from a security POV. Since it's considered a staging area rather than a "proper" distribution, it isn't security-managed, and occasionally vulnerabilities can persist for an extended period of time. The most common case: v1 of a package is in Debian stable. v2 comes out, is uploaded to unstable, migrates to testing. Later, v3 comes out, is uploaded to unstable, but its migration to te…
Interesting scenario. I never heard it voiced before, and must be so rare it can safely be ignored as a non-issue.