CrunchBang Linux

Dr.Strangelove

Member

From: A movie from the early 60s

Registered: 2009-02-21

Posts: 37

"Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

The way I understand this, Statler could be based on either "Squeeze" or "Testing", as far as the used software and the upgrade path goes, which presently would mean exactly the same.

However, after Squeeze is released as Debian stable, it will make a lot of difference: Squeeze will probably be rock stable, but only receive security upgrades, while Testing will be the right choice for folks wanting a rolling release, newer software, but are willing to trade some of the stability of the system for that.

If this is true (and please feel free to correct me if it isn't, I have never for a long time used Debian pure), I would suggest to base Statler on Squeeze - those feeling competent to run a rolling release system will have little trouble making the necessary changes to continue to use Testing, while users wanting a stable system that just works (and, maybe, are not even aware of the difference between Squeeze and Testing) will not need to do anything.

---

--
"Strangelove? What kind of a name is that? That ain't no Kraut name, is it, Stainesey?" - "He changed it when he became a citizen. Used to be Merkwuerdigeliebe."

rizzo

#! wanderer

From: ~/

Registered: 2008-11-25

Posts: 5,108

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

^ My understanding is that the statler release will be as you've described in the last paragraph above.

corenominal

root

From: Lincoln, UK

Registered: 2008-11-20

Posts: 4,887

Website

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

^ My understanding is that the statler release will be as you've described in the last paragraph above.

That is my understanding too.

---

My website | Follow me on Twitter | CrunchBang on DistroWatch

jotapesse

#! Junkie

From: Algarve, Portugal

Registered: 2009-02-07

Posts: 312

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

Philip, you could provide that option at install time, either "stable" = "squeeze" or "rolling release" = "testing".

---

On an ASRock VisionX 321B, Asus EeeBoxPC 1501P and EeePC 1000H with Debian Sid/Experimental Xfce 4.10 Linux
How to: Install Xfce 4.10 with upgraded Apps and Plugins

snowpine

#!-a-roo

Registered: 2008-11-24

Posts: 2,554

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

Oh cool! I misunderstood something I read elsewhere and assumed Statler would be testing/rolling release (see my other thread), but this is better for me.

Last edited by snowpine (2010-03-14 14:56:18)

---

/hugged

janek

Member

From: Leipzig, Germany

Registered: 2009-06-07

Posts: 26

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

Philip, you could provide that option at install time, either "stable" = "squeeze" or "rolling release" = "testing".

One option could be called Statler and the other Waldorf!
I'm really looking forward to both of them. Thanx to you all.

bozhkov

#! Junkie

Registered: 2009-12-29

Posts: 463

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

Well, testing is not exactly rolling release, as it's stability varies a great deal - for example during the freeze, the short period after the stable release, the flood afterwards, to painful experience of updating major meta packages as DE-s, office suits. Arch Linux is really a rolling release, as there is the most smooth transition trough package versions. I also would like Statler to be Squeeze based, and to stay that way for loong time - there are backports, and, of course, I believe the #! repo would love to transfer to the debian means. Somehow like MEPIS and it's 8th release - Lenny based with a nice MEPIS-backed repository with custom kernels, newer version of packages and so on.

gutterslob

#! Resident Bum

Registered: 2009-11-03

Posts: 2,642

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

I also would like Statler to be Squeeze based, and to stay that way for loong time - there are backports, and, of course, I believe the #! repo would love to transfer to the debian means. Somehow like MEPIS and it's 8th release - Lenny based with a nice MEPIS-backed repository with custom kernels, newer version of packages and so on.

I know it's based on Sid (unstable), but Sidux repos would make a good choice here, especially for those who want to stay rolling.
Sidux uses a true rolling release cycle (their own words, not mine), but their repos often avoid defective/troublesome packages found in the Debian Sid repos.

Best compromise, no?

---

Point & Squirt

snowpine

#!-a-roo

Registered: 2008-11-24

Posts: 2,554

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

I know it's based on Sid (unstable), but Sidux repos would make a good choice here, especially for those who want to stay rolling.
Sidux uses a true rolling release cycle (their own words, not mine), but their repos often avoid defective/troublesome packages found in the Debian Sid repos.

Best compromise, no?

I disagree; Squeeze, not Sid, is the best choice for CrunchBang (plus it sounds like this decision has already been made). But, I will probably try to convert one of my #! computers to Sid, just for fun, and I've already started a thread where we can share our experiences, if you want to join me on the adventure.

If you choose to convert to Sid, you can easily add the sidux repos and/or kernels using the smxi.org script.

ps Sidux repos only have a few dozen packages, not enough for a complete distro. They use the main, unpatched Debian Sid repos whenever possible. Sidux is a great project, but they have a very different "culture" than #!... they're very conservative about the "official sidux way", and certainly not interested in exploding muppets!

---

/hugged

gutterslob

#! Resident Bum

Registered: 2009-11-03

Posts: 2,642

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

I know it's based on Sid (unstable), but Sidux repos would make a good choice here, especially for those who want to stay rolling.
Sidux uses a true rolling release cycle (their own words, not mine), but their repos often avoid defective/troublesome packages found in the Debian Sid repos.

Best compromise, no?

I disagree; Squeeze, not Sid, is the best choice for CrunchBang (plus it sounds like this decision has already been made). But, I will probably try to convert one of my #! computers to Sid, just for fun, and I've already started a thread where we can share our experiences, if you want to join me on the adventure.

If you choose to convert to Sid, you can easily add the sidux repos and/or kernels using the smxi.org script.

ps Sidux repos only have a few dozen packages, not enough for a complete distro. They use the main, unpatched Debian Sid repos whenever possible. Sidux is a great project, but they have a very different "culture" than #!... they're very conservative about the "official sidux way", and certainly not interested in exploding muppets!

I did use the word "compromise", after all.
I guess you're right...  I've never found Sidux's repos wanting, since I run my SiduxBang install on a netbook, which isn't really meant to replace my desktop system.

Edit:
What is this "adventure" you speak of?  O_o?
Note to self: I really should explore threads outside the screenshot one....

Last edited by gutterslob (2010-03-14 15:34:48)

---

Point & Squirt

snowpine

#!-a-roo

Registered: 2008-11-24

Posts: 2,554

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

I did use the word "compromise", after all.

"Compromise" kind of implies there's something wrong with Squeeze and therefore a compromise needs to be made. I disagree.

The "adventure" is: I predict eventually some of us will be running stable, some of us testing, and some sid. (Maybe even experimental and oldstable! )

ps to me the ideal compromise would be using apt-pinning to pull an application in from unstable if you personally need a newer version than what's in testing.

Last edited by snowpine (2010-03-14 15:47:30)

---

/hugged

anonymous

The Mystery Member

From: Arch Linux Forums

Registered: 2008-11-29

Posts: 8,904

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

My vote goes for "Testing" although I suppose Philip is set on using "Squeeze"

Now the reason I don't want "Squeeze" is that once it becomes stable, packages will become older than the Ubuntu equivalent.

---

Note: ** Please read before posting **

BTW if you wish to contact me, send me an e-mail instead of a PM.

snowpine

#!-a-roo

Registered: 2008-11-24

Posts: 2,554

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

My vote goes for "Testing" although I suppose Philip is set on using "Squeeze"

Now the reason I don't want "Squeeze" is that once it becomes stable, packages will become older than the Ubuntu equivalent.

It will (hypothetically) be really easy to "roll" Statler over to testing (or even unstable) if you want. Just edit /etc/apt/sources.list and change "squeeze" to "testing." I've already started a thread where we can share tips/tricks/warnings:

http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/topic … onversion/

Another nice thing about Debian is that it's really easy  to mix testing and unstable using apt-pinning. So you can pull a selected package from the unstable repo if you need a newer version. Or, if you follow Squeeze to stable, Debian has a good backports repo.

---

/hugged

Kookaburra

#! CrunchBanger

From: Orléans - France

Registered: 2009-09-03

Posts: 234

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

[
It will (hypothetically) be really easy to "roll" Statler over to testing (or even unstable) if you want. Just edit /etc/apt/sources.list and change "squeeze" to "testing."

In this case, it could more simple to base Statler on Squeeze for "no-experiment"  users, it's sure ...
And I think it's also more more more simple for devellopers

I prefer to have directly a rolling-release, but I understand the negative points

---

My Fluidr (= Fickr) : http://www.fluidr.com/photos/kookadimi/sets

charlie01

#! Die Hard

Registered: 2009-02-09

Posts: 556

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

Another nice thing about Debian is that it's really easy  to mix testing and unstable using apt-pinning. So you can pull a selected package from the unstable repo if you need a newer version. Or, if you follow Squeeze to stable, Debian has a good backports repo.

It doesnt seem much different than adding to the ubuntu repos list.
For anyone who wasnt sure what apt-pinning was here is a link.
http://jaqque.sbih.org/kplug/apt-pinning.html

Ive also been reading up on Stable/Testing and Unstable.
Heres a link for people that are not quite sure what to make of
this conversation.
http://www.debian.org/releases/

I dont necessarily need to have the newest latest greatest software on my system as long as it works and isnt quirky.So Stable makes sense for me,Apt pinning doesnt seem like hard work if i had to have a certain software.

snowpine

#!-a-roo

Registered: 2008-11-24

Posts: 2,554

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

It doesnt seem much different than adding to the ubuntu repos list.

There is one BIG difference between running a mixed testing/unstable Debian system vs. Ubuntu plus PPA's.

You are using the official Debian repositories instead of 3rd party software sources.

---

/hugged

alon_h

#! Junkie

Registered: 2008-12-13

Posts: 269

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

It doesnt seem much different than adding to the ubuntu repos list.

There is one BIG difference between running a mixed testing/unstable Debian system vs. Ubuntu plus PPA's.

You are using the official Debian repositories instead of 3rd party software sources.

Which has it's own pros & cons... I prefer it the Debian way, but, for example, Unstable's FF (read Iceweasel) is still on version 3.5.8, OOO tends to lag behind, not to mention other big projects that are years behind (Eclipse 3.4 ? with the cdt plugin at 3.1 ? c'mon).

a.

charlie01

#! Die Hard

Registered: 2009-02-09

Posts: 556

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

As far as the mechanics of getting newer software it doesnt seem to difficult.
That was more my point versus the pro`s or cons.

Theres alot of testing and unstable releases out there wich have proven to be pretty stable
as far as distro`s go.

And its good to know that all my Ubuntu knowledge wont go to total waste
when i swap over to #!Statler.

Im a mediocre at best linux user who is learning everyday and im not afraid to tinker. LOL

liame

#! CrunchBanger

Registered: 2009-09-01

Posts: 100

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

My vote goes for "Testing" although I suppose Philip is set on using "Squeeze"

Now the reason I don't want "Squeeze" is that once it becomes stable, packages will become older than the Ubuntu equivalent.

+1

vrkalak

#! Die Hard

From: Santa Fe, NM, USA

Registered: 2009-09-14

Posts: 1,490

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

Has anyone that is using #! Statler, noticed that the Debian Squeeze repositories have NOT updated lately?

Here's why?  From the Debian User Forums:

http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=50628
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=50610

Apparently, the Debian Sources servers are down.

---

Registered Linux User: #497030
DeviantART page |  Ask.Debian
#!Crunchbang 'Waldorf' (Openbox) -- Mint-Debian Fluxbox Edition

Weegee

New Member

From: Germany

Registered: 2010-04-07

Posts: 4

Website

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

Support for both Debian Testing and Debian Stable would be the best solution. I've been using Debian Stable for a few months, and it wasn't a real pleasure. Of course it's important to have a stable system, but Debian Stable is ... too stable for regular desktop PCs, and I don't think that every #!-user runs a server which needs to be rock stable. For example I've heard of problems with MTP devices when using Debian Lenny, because the libmtp within the Debian repositories is just obsolete - and there may be similar cases of problems due to obsolete software.

Philip, you could provide that option at install time, either "stable" = "squeeze" or "rolling release" = "testing".

I'd appreciate this

Last edited by Weegee (2010-04-07 12:25:27)

rizzo

#! wanderer

From: ~/

Registered: 2008-11-25

Posts: 5,108

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

Philip, you could provide that option at install time, either "stable" = "squeeze" or "rolling release" = "testing".

I don't think that is possible with the current installer. It would be a fairly simple matter to make a script to run post install that could do this.

snowpine

#!-a-roo

Registered: 2008-11-24

Posts: 2,554

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

You just need to change one word in one file. I am now running #! Sid.

---

/hugged

rizzo

#! wanderer

From: ~/

Registered: 2008-11-25

Posts: 5,108

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

The discussion in this thread really highlights why a Debian base is a great way for CrunchBang to move forward. From the base install you have so many options: stick with Squeeze and eventually stable; keep stable relevant with backports down the track; convert to testing; convert to unstable or if you prefer a testing/unstable mix.

So much choice and flexibility I don't know why I  didn't moved to Debian years ago. It has been a joy ever since

epidenimus

Member

From: U.S.A!

Registered: 2010-03-14

Posts: 37

Re: "Squeeze" vs. "Testing"

As one of the more novice users on this forum, all I want from #! and most Linux distros in terms of packages is to have stability, get security updates as needed, and keep my day-to-day applications, libs, and dependencies (i.e. Firefox, e-mail client, OO.o, GIMP, VLC, Audacity, K3B, etc) current.  I think having to do a clean install every 6-12 months is pretty absurd, every 2 years is more like it.  Ubuntu and derivatives have to be virtually hacked just to do the basic chore, thereby becoming self-defeating in their intended package management simplicity.  Seriously, why do I need an Ubuntuzilla that needs to be run from the CLI just to keep FF current.  I hate that kind of slop and the folks who I have turned on to Linux get really turned off by it, too. 

Adding full on Unstable repos to the sources.list brings in a whole flood of things, most of which just bring the system more current.  But if you get into those that hose things up, you're completely F'd until you (often sans a working machine) figure it out. 
I like flexibility, but there has to be some comfortable ground between:

"Here's the pussy, you figure it out!" (Thanks, Sam!)         vs.        This starts becoming obsolete the moment we release it.

Achieve this simple request and you'll be my hero. 

Also, I'd really like if the System Update script could recognize apt-pinned apps that I have locked in via Synaptic.

Last edited by epidenimus (2010-04-07 14:47:12)

---

--
Saying that only masochists use Windoze is a slap in the face to fun-loving, leather-masked gents worldwide.