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

Debian 12 “Bookworm”

debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 241 posts

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#221

Post by gsich »

stracer wrote: post #220
gsich wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it works and writing init files with startup dependencies is cumbersome.

Sysvinit also works. How is writing init files cumbersome? Writing startup dependencies is easy - there is the Required-Start header in the ### BEGIN INIT INFO block where you put the required services.

Because of the stuff you just mentioned. I don't know if a process has started (status could be wrong), don't see the output. Also you enter a dependency hell with this type of info block.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#222

Post by pjmlp »

blihp wrote: post #199
teddyh wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is the actor in this scenario who wants to change the status quo and therefore support the RISC-V platform in Debian? I.e. who are the people with the motivation to do that?

The Debian project has been historically a vocal proponent for open hardware/firmware/drivers etc. and here we are in 2023 having Debian somewhat controversially acknowledging that proprietary firmware may be required at least by some users, to some degree. So I am suggesting that if they really want to get there that they might need to help facilitate the change they would like to see. Is RISC-V the be-all, end-all?…

RISC-V doesn't close the door on proprietary extensions.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#224

Post by snvzz »

pjmlp wrote: post #222
blihp wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Debian project has been historically a vocal proponent for open hardware/firmware/drivers etc. and here we are in 2023 having Debian somewhat controversially acknowledging that proprietary firmware may be required at least by some users, to some degree. So I am suggesting that if they really want to get there that they might need to help facilitate the change they would like to see. Is RISC-V the be-all, end-all?…

RISC-V doesn't close the door on proprietary extensions.

Proprietary extensions need to live in the opcode space reserved for custom extensions, where it'll overlap with other vendors' own custom extensions.

If they conflict with RISC-V's own space, the chip can't use RISC-V trademarks.

And, of course, the RISC-V Consortium will never adopt proprietary extensions, as that goes against its core values.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#225

Post by e12e »

pas wrote: post #70
jfhr wrote: post #41

> The new systemd-resolved package will not be installed automatically on upgrades as it has been split into a separate package. If using the systemd-resolved system service, please install the new package manually after the upgrade, and note that until it has been installed, DNS resolution may no longer work as the service will not be present on the system. will installing over the internet work without DNS resoluti…

yes, as the script adds/replaces the sources.list lines, then apt i downloads the packages, only then it starts the installation of them

But you can't (easily) get the deb package for systemd-resolved after the upgrade has (possibly) broken DNS?

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#226

Post by zargon »

hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #223

I'm not a Linux expert, I just want an OS that works well, and that's debian for me. Now, how do I upgrade? Just apt upgrade? Does it matter that I have i3wm instead of whatever the default is?

The upgrade instructions are in the release notes. It looks long but is pretty straightforward if you haven't installed software from outside the debian ecosystem or created a frankenstein mix of packages from non-stable, non-backports distro versions.

https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch...

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#227

Post by e12e »

hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #223

I'm not a Linux expert, I just want an OS that works well, and that's debian for me. Now, how do I upgrade? Just apt upgrade? Does it matter that I have i3wm instead of whatever the default is?

> Now, how do I upgrade?

Read the documentation, follow it.

https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes...

> Just apt upgrade?

Mostly (please do RTFM):

  # update to latest point release of current system:
  sudo apt update
  sudo apt upgrade
  sudo apt full-upgrade
  sudo apt --purge autoremove

  # Update sources list
  sudo sed -i 's/bullseye/bookworm/g' /etc/apt/sources.list

  # upgrade to bookworm:
  sudo apt update
  sudo apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs
  sudo apt full-upgrade
  sudo apt --purge autoremove
> Does it matter that I have i3wm instead of whatever the default is?

Generally no, unless you've specified/use third party (or to a lesser extent "back port") software sources.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#228

Post by pjmlp »

snvzz wrote: post #224
pjmlp wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RISC-V doesn't close the door on proprietary extensions.

Proprietary extensions need to live in the opcode space reserved for custom extensions, where it'll overlap with other vendors' own custom extensions. If they conflict with RISC-V's own space, the chip can't use RISC-V trademarks. And, of course, the RISC-V Consortium will never adopt proprietary extensions, as that goes against its core values.

What matters is what is on the market, and how it is made available.

Everything else matters as much as FSF point of view on something being free or not.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#229

Post by pabs3 »

teddyh wrote: post #217
pabs3 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The RISC-V port of Debian was driven by internal Debian contributors, not by external actors. Similarly for Debian kFreeBSD and some other ports. OTOH, for LoongArch and ARC, those ports are driven almost entirely by the companies selling those chips. So I would say it is a mix.

> The RISC-V port of Debian was driven by internal Debian contributors, not by external actors. Yes, but my point is, they weren’t doing that work just because they were Debian contributors; they had their own additional reason for doing it. They were not assigned the work by Debian central command. Therefore , asking Debian why Debian does not do some work or other is usually the wrong way to get something done.

Yes, there isn't much of a Debian central command, apart from the technical committee, but they can't force/direct people to do things, only to say what Debian will do in specific circumstances.

That said, the community of contributors are what makes up the Debian project, so in a sense it is Debian deciding to do things when Debian does things :)

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#230

Post by pabs3 »

jedisct1 wrote: post #188

The dnscrypt-proxy package doesn't exist any more?

There was a build failure in one of its dependencies and that bug didn't get fixed in time for it to re-enter bookworm before the freeze.

https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/dnscrypt-proxy https://tracker.debian.org/news/1366204/dnscrypt-proxy-remov... https://bugs.debian.org/1017302

Post reply on HN