Siduction Forum
Siduction Forum => Free Speech => Topic started by: dibl on 2014/05/12, 15:45:48
-
There is an interesting thread on the DE side of this forum, where new user Wonko was asking about the difference between pure Sid and siduction, and about the stability of siduction in comparison to other distros. With the help of google translator and a smattering of German I can read it, but I cannot write grammatical German, so I will put my two cents here for the English readers.
My experience from about 7 years of running sidux > aptosid > siduction is this: Most people, like Wonko, think about OS "stability" as an attribute of the installed OS itself. In other words, it is an inherent characteristic, like the horsepower of a motor or the color of a car. But I don't think this is the correct understanding of "stability" in the case of a rolling release like siduction. Because of the way new packages and upgraded features of Debian sid are introduced, the system might run forever in the configuration it was in on Sunday, but be destroyed by a dist-upgrade on Monday. For the wise user who is following the recommendations of the siduction development team, in reviewing the apt-get output, and checking the "Upgrade Warnings" forum here, the choice will be "n" on the dist-upgrade question on Monday, and that system will not be damaged by a temporary chaos situation in the Debian sid repos. Therefore, I say that the stability of a siduction system is more a function of the user's care, and adherence to the official recommendations, than it is to any inherent attribute of the OS. My sid-based systems have never become unstable just because they were Debian sid -- they only suffered if the user got careless and/or impatient and broke them.
I am writing this on my big desktop rig that I built in 2010. I reconfigured the hardware in mid-2011 and reinstalled aptosid "Imera" on it, and then "cross-graded" it to siduction at the beginning of 2012. This morning I ran d-u and pulled in towo's new 3.15-rc5 kernel, plus the available sid upgraded packages, and rebooted. I am confident it will be running 24/7 until the next kernel becomes available, because it is very stable. 8)
-
Therefore, I say that the stability of a siduction system is more a function of the user's care, and adherence to the official recommendations, than it is to any inherent attribute of the OS. My sid-based systems have never become unstable just because they were Debian sid -- they only suffered if the user got careless and/or impatient and broke them.
Good point dibl, but I like to add that I see the stability also depending on the care the distributors lay into their choice of packages and the speed fixes are delivered and herefore siduction seems a good choice.
Using sidux/aptosid/siduction since early 2008 I never had an experience of more stability -besides debian stable. Not speaking of any windows ever installed on my machines. Don't know what I've done to my various trys on ubuntu and opensuse to break them most regularly, besides trying new software... :)
So I would say it's both, inherence and personally caress that make my systems stable.
Greets
ayla
and sorry for the grammars...
-
Ayla, Dein Englisch ist viel besser als mein deutsche Rede. :D
-
Hmm... I don't have this impression when reading your german posts. Most are good understandable and clear.
Besides, because I have seen some bickering in times, -not on you personally- I don't care reading an english post in a german subforum or vice versa. If it's helpful it's good to have it and one can translate if need be. :-)
Greets
Ayla
-
Hi dibl,
one understands you well when you write in German here. I myself still able to speak the English language not very good, but Google Translate helps one further. I've always understood you until now;-)
-----------DE-----------
Hi dibl,
man versteht dich gut wenn du auf deutsch hier schreibst. Ich selbst beherrsche auch nicht besonders gut die englische Sprache, aber Google Translate hilft einen weiter. Ich habe dich bis jetzt immer verstanden ;-)
-
dibl, your german is better than mine ;)
-
Heh -- thanks. Before I travelled the first time to Germany, I bought a set of audio CDs to learn some conversational German, and I played them and practiced while commuting to and from work. So I learned quite a few useful phrases, such as
"Where is the bathroom?"
"Which road leads to the airport?"
"I'll have the Saumagen." etc.
;D
But I never took the time to learn any grammar, so I can't write a respectable German sentence without pulling up Systran or something to help me put it together. I did buy a German grammar textbook, but it's never come up to the top of my priority list.
-
...But I never took the time to learn any grammar, so I can't write a respectable German sentence...
;D
Don't worry, Germans can't do that either.
greetz
devil
-
Hello Everyone -
I'm fairly new to siduction (second day using) and I'm actually happy I found this thread. I was thinking the exact same question today about the differences between siduction, and Debian Sid. I think I have a grasp on the differences, but I do have some questions:
1.) Are all the packages and repo's coming directly through Sid, or are they somehow filtered through a siduction repo to check for breakages, etc and then allowed through?
2.) I saw a mention of using a forum to check for breakages, etc. Is there any advice you could give someone new as far as upgrades go? Should I just bookmark the forum subsection, should I not upgrade daily? I have a habit of upgrading every day throughout the years, is this bad practice in siduction?
Thanks for any insight and help you can give! I appologize if I should have started a new forum topic instead of posting here if I shouldn't have.
-
Welcome Meister :)
to your first question, if you investigate the files in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/* (or use the command inxi -r) you will find that there are lines directing to debian, so you'll get unfiltered sid. Sometimes, if packages break and fixes/patches are known, it is likely that these get uploaded to siduction/fixes with a higher version, so the fixed packages gets preference until debian catches up. Other siduction-stuff are for example some helper-scripts or configurations, and if you like you might get newer versions of some DEs (KDE for example) before debian has them.
To your second question, as it is always a good idea to check the warnings in this forum before distupgrading, it can and will happen (this is sid) that things break and you are the first who gets hit by it or others did not have the time to write a warning. So besides forum you should ALWAY WATCH the output of your apt commands and never ever hit 'Yes' without thinking. Often seen here is the advice to apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade -dy
which will only download all upgradeable stuff but not install it. Then with 'apt-get dist-upgrade' check the output if packages will get removed - if yes make an educated guess if they get reinstalled by a successor or in a newer version or if you do not need them, and if in doubt just wait some hours.
-
I have a habit of upgrading every day throughout the years, is this bad practice in siduction?
This is very good practice, especially in sid.
Like said above, just watch what apt says, if not sure, come here or irc.
sid updates 4 times a day, the longer you wait to dist-upgrade the more problems/breakage/borked can happen.
The norm would be to not go over 2 weeks without a du (distupgrade).
Welcome to siduction !
-
Thanks guys, I feel more comfortable now that I know how things work. I appreciate the advice and I'll be sure to put it to use. I may have only been using siduction for a day or two, but I'm loving it already. :D
-
... should I not upgrade daily? I have a habit of upgrading every day throughout the years, is this bad practice in siduction?
Daily, weekly, or semi-monthly -- it doesn't really matter. The key is, (a) look at what apt-get dist-upgrade is telling you, especially with respect to "Remove", and (b) if you see something concerning, check "Upgrade Warnings" on this forum. You will never break your system by waiting -- only by running d-u without looking. ;)
-
My name is sunrat and it's been 33 days since my last dist-upgrade. :) I delayed it due to upgrade warning in the forum and not being at the computer much lately.
I just did dist-upgrade (over 600MB) and almost all went smoothly, except for sound which is a side issue. Clementine and QMMP couldn't find the correct card, although Amarok and System Settings audio test worked. My computer has 3 sound cards so I finally got round to setting them in the correct order by making a /etc/modprobe.d/alsa.conf file. All fixed and swinging now. ;) 8)
-
I would say, not from knowing anything about sid but from all this years as user that I do not have more more problem with longer times between d-us than shorter times, in fact the opposite. I have maintained a few computers many years, some I do d-u on very often, like every day up to like 5-10 times every month, some other computers situated on other locations have been done d-u on only between 3 and 6 times every year and it has never been a problem as I know because the long time between the d-u:s. Possibly there can be other issues like security ones doing d-u very seldom but that's the only way I can maintain these computers
Doing d-u very often makes me run in to this small issues which normally will be solved by waiting then and then. Most issues will either solve them selves or be solved by debian or siduction maintainers, so statisticly (Wrong spelled, spell-check still don't work for me on this forum) I run in to less problems if I do d-u not so often.
-
Well, there you have it - or not.
I upgrade frequently, and still find that the most powerful tool in the box is simply reading - with a dose of patience tossed in.
The devs suggest not waiting for months. I would propose that if someone wants support that it makes sense to follow the advice given by the devs. It is the owners system, and they are free to do as they choose, but that owner is straying into the non-supported or experimental realm at that point, IMO.
-
There is only one major problem with not updating for month - major transitions like perl. That can be a real pita - and i tested it by myselt, have forgotten some machines for a year or so - depending on how one would define fun, it was a lot of fun :D
-
Most issues will either solve them selves or be solved by debian or siduction maintainers, so statisticly (Wrong spelled, spell-check still don't work for me on this forum)
statistically - courtesy sunrat spellcheck service. :) Spellcheck doesn't work here either, it flags misspelled words but doesn't suggest alternatives.
I haven't had much trouble with longer periods between dist-upgrade, but almost never have left it over a month. Usually weekly or more.
-
If it generally wouldn't work with long times between dist-upgrades it would not be working to only have one or two releases every year. A new installation today, from latest siduction release and a d-u after that will be equivalent with a 5 month gap between two dist-upgrades. If that wouldn't work the dist would not be able to new users most of the time.
My amateur thoughts about this is that it's not the time from latest d-u that determine if it shall work or not, it's the status in the repos in sid and siduction just the moment you do your d-u that is the critical thing.
And if it is that the time the repos are in a good status (d-u will work) are much longer than the time the repos are not that good (d-u will not work that well) it will be that as more often you do a d-u the more often you will hit a bad time for doing d-u.
I understand that it could be a problem doing d-u after a long time it will be harder to find solutions, it's not so easy to get through several month of "Upgrade Warnings" in the forum.
By writing this I don't want to recommend anyone to wait months between dist-upgrades I'm just thinking loud.
-
As a rule of heart we can state: more often is better, things tend to get more complicated over time. So if you want to d-u every week, every day or 3 times per day (like me), feel free to do so. Just read what apt wants to do before hitting the button. In case you do not like what you see (removal of packages you want to keep), wait it out, there is a mirror sync every 6 hours in debian.
Pure 32- (if still existent) or 64-bit installs will see those removals or packages being not installable less often than multiarch systems. These more often suffer from situations where a package is available for one arch but not for the other. Those situations are mostly resolved in a day ot two. Common sense really solves most problems with d-u.
greetz
devil
-
...Often seen here is the advice to apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade -dy
which will only download all upgradeable stuff but not install it. ...
I never saw it with the -y option. It won't harm together with the -d option. But it sure as hell would harm without it as it is the equivalent to blindly klick the yes bottom.
Which benefit does the -y option generate to the user? It starts the download without permitting the user a glance on what's going on. This makes it a bit contradictory to the general rule.
I would suggest to omit the -y option and not suggest it anymore.
-
Quote from: der_bud on May 31, 2014, 07:35:50 PM (http://forum.siduction.org/index.php?topic=4571.msg38381#msg38381)...Often seen here is the advice to Code: [Select] (http://javascript:void(0);)apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade -dy
which will only download all upgradeable stuff but not install it. ...
I never saw it with the -y option. It won't harm together with the -d option. But it sure as hell would harm without it as it is the equivalent to blindly klick the yes bottom.
Which benefit does the -y option generate to the user? It starts the download without permitting the user a glance on what's going on. This makes it a bit contradictory to the general rule.
I would suggest to omit the -y option and not suggest it anymore.
apt-get clean
would wipe it
root@x1:/home/piper# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade -dy
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
module-assistant python3-pkg-resources
The following packages will be upgraded:
binutils cups cups-browsed cups-bsd cups-client cups-common
cups-core-drivers cups-daemon cups-filters cups-filters-core-drivers
cups-ppdc cups-server-common glances iproute iproute2 libcups2 libcupscgi1
libcupsfilters1 libcupsimage2 libcupsmime1 libcupsppdc1 libexpat1
libexpat1:i386 libffi-dev libffi6 libffi6:i386 libfontembed1
libgssapi-krb5-2 libk5crypto3 libkrb5-3 libkrb5support0 libpython3-stdlib
libsigsegv2 libva-glx1 libva-x11-1 libva1 python-gdbm python-paramiko
python3 python3-minimal virtualbox virtualbox-dkms
virtualbox-guest-additions-iso virtualbox-qt virtualbox-source
45 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
2 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 75.6 MB of archives.
Fetched 75.6 MB in 2min 34s (86.4 kB/s)
Download complete and in download only mode
apt-get clean wipes it and you can start over
-
I don't understand what you're talking about.
-
-d says "Download only, don't install"
-y says "Just do it -- don't ask me about it"
So it is method to get all the updated packages downloaded without installing anything and without second keyboard input to confirm the command. I can imagine if you had to come down from the mountain with your netbook, and pay $20 per hour for a wifi connection, then this might be a good way to get your updates. Personally, I don't need to do that. You would NOT want to forget to read your messages before you do the real d-u. ;-)
-
I don't understand what you're talking about.
Using
-d -y
together like
apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade -d -y
will not "install" anything, it will still put you in
Download complete and in download only mode
So lets say you did a
"apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade -d -y"
and it put you in the "download" mode and you were busy for a week
and you didn't have time to do a du, and now you do, you could do
apt-get clean
Which will clear
/var/cache/apt/archives
Now you can do a again
"apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade -d -y"
Not sure if this makes sense to anyone, but I usually du 2-3 times a day, sometimes, I have to skip a day due to working to much and I practice the above.
I use "clean" to avoid any conflicts in versions of the app between du's, you shouldn't have to use clean, but I do, I have seen things before to make me practice this way.
A week without a du and "cups" could have upgrading twice since.
people with bandwith problems, not a good idea
YMMV
-
My english may not be the best, but the confusion my posting seems to create lets me assume that is is even worse than I think. *My* confusion came from the context in which my posting was cited.
I was perfectly aware of the meaning of -d and -y. I am using the -d option and avoid activly the -y option *since years*.
I only wanted to emphasize that telling people to open their eyes during d-u and then suggesting the -y option might not be wise, even when done in slighly different contexts.
Does this make clear what I suggested?
--------------------------------------------
Now, citing my above critics above your suggestion ("apt-get clear") was what I didn't understand.
First it seems completly unrelated to what I said (at least to what I *wanted* to say) and second, now with your additional explaination your suggestion seems to solve a problem that does *not exist* if I understand correctly what you suggested:
There is no *need* to clear whatever. You may "a-g u && a-g d-u -d -y" as often as you wish with as many days in between as you like (if you don't exceed it too far, which would be an other problem) eventually the really completed d-u will work like it would work without all the intermediate download-only d-u_s with exacly the same outcome.
In other words: Your system today it up to date. You make a "a-g u && a-g d-u -d -y" on each of the next three days without installing the downloaded pakages. The fourth day you again make a "a-g u && a-g d-u -d -y", but then, after reading und parsing the output, you install the packages. It will behave as if you omitted the three previous downloads. It does not get installed what you have in your apt cache but but what the *latest* d-u calculates on base of the *installed* and currently available packages.
That's how I do it since years (omitting the -y option ;-) )
Was I misreading your suggestion?
----------------------------------------
Unrelated to the above but a general suggestion to d-u. The result *is* related to (not) using the -y option, though:
What I really, exactly use for d-u is:
apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade --ignore-hold -d
I even use it if nothing is activly marked "hold" because I issue it using the .bash_history or the tab completition. This way I never ever may forgett about held packages. It is my *default*. I download held packages.
Each "a-g u && a-g d-u --ignore-hold -d" shows me the sid status for my system. (Together with following the forum's update warning section) I am aware of the problems *all the time*, allways inclusive possibly held packages. It is my laziness which prevents me from d-u_ing with install daily.
And when I install, I am aware whether or not I should keep held packages by deleting "--ignore-hold" in the command. If there is nothing held it does not hurt, I don't delete it.
So if I'd suggest a d-u strategy I'd suggested mine, of course, because you *always* get a complete picture and all info you need without any additional ado.
This is the *opposite* of the -y option.
-
Your not making yourself clear
You talking about the -y option by itself, or the -d -y together ?
If your talking -y by itself, then no, it is not recommended, unless you are testing on a non-productive box and know what your doing and still you can run into trouble (my first time building linuxfromscratch gives me goosebumps :) ).
In other words: Your system today it up to date. You make a "a-g u && a-g d-u -d -y" on each of the next three days without
installing the downloaded pakages. The fourth day you again make a "a-g u
&& a-g d-u -d -y", but then, after reading und parsing the
output, you install the packages. It will behave as if you omitted the
three previous downloads. It does not get installed what you have in
your apt cache but but what the *latest* d-u calculates on base of the
*installed* and currently available packages.
This has not always been the case, I learned the hard way, why I apt-get clean. Granted, over a decade in sid and a half dozen times (more or less) it screwed me, not really screwed, but updating to the upgraded version after another du seconds after the first completed, so to avoid it I do it my way, it only takes milliseconds of time.
EDIT: somehow I missed this It won't harm together with the -d option. But it sure as hell would harm without it as it is the equivalent to blindly klick the yes bottom.
I will still continue with apt-get clean, that way, I know for sure, what is going on at all times, I don't trust apt/aptitude 100%, (aptitude even worse in sid only, stable is fine) been burned before by both, and I won't let it happen again. :)
-
Your not making yourself clear
You talking about the -y option by itself, or the -d -y together ?
I think you got it in the meantime (considering your *edit*). But to be clear, the -y option is evil in general and especially *without* the -d option. Together with the -d option it does not harm (as in "potentially breaking your system"), but I still would not recommend/suggest it due to its effect of hiding usefull information AND due to the related bad educational effect to the user (compared with my command).
the *latest* d-u calculates on base of the
*installed* and currently available packages.
This has not always been the case, ...
I never ever encountered your problem. The only similar occurrence happened with broken/incomplete d-u_s where the oldone was finished and a newone began (IIRC).
What you are telling here never occured to me. But from your experience I can understand your suggestion although I am still wondering if there was a strange order of commands you issued. And I still wonder how previous "d-u -d_s" could interfere with a new upgrade calculation. This makes no sense at all as it implies the upgrade *calculation* gets saved. Saving this calculation sounds like a stupid, unneccesary and counterproductive idea, even more sensless while making a *d-u -d*. I'd called it a bug (and filled a bug report).
Thanks for helping clearing up my confusion with your explanation about how and why you're doing d-u_s your way.
-
I have a habit of upgrading every day throughout the years, is this bad practice in siduction?
This is very good practice, especially in sid.
Hmmm...in the forums of another distro for users tracking Sid, the suggestion is just the opposite...do not upgrade on a daily basis.
-
Except when I went out of town, I have been doing daily upgrades on my 2 main systems for over 3 years. But, sometimes you see a problem and you choose "n" -- maybe once a month or something like that. That is why we have the upgrade warnings forum.
-
...
Hmmm...in the forums of another distro for users tracking Sid, the suggestion is just the opposite...do not upgrade on a daily basis.
I'd say it depends what you want to achieve:
(1) You don't like to spent time upgrading your system: So d-u on a monthly basis or less. Note: This is ***NOT*** recommended, although in most circumstances there won't be problems. But you may miss dozens of little changes or big package transitions which then accumulate to a mess. Noone may help you then.
(2) If you want to minimize your efforts, then d-u once, twice within two weeks. You'll be fairly safe.
(3) You need to be informed instantly about the changes in Debian/Sid (because you are a developer, a siduction mod or somehow interested in what's going on). You will d-u on a daily basis (maybe faking it by using the -d option). Or at maximum 4 times a day.
Whichever option you chose, in each case you should read carefully the apt-get * output (removed packages). And you should read the update warnings in the forum.
I am fakeing d-u daily and really dist-upgrade once/twice within two weeks. This way I'm always informed whether or not there are d-u problems. It's easier to then select a moment when all or most conflicts are solved in one way or another.
-
@UP2L8:
long story short - if you don't want update/upgrade frequently sid(uction) isn't really the best distribution for you. Sorry, but stable fits better in that case. (Its not about sid(uction) but about every rolling distribution)
to be true, this is not a message only to you, its for every one who think about driving a rolling distribution. Rolling has many advantages but also disadvantages. In case of sid this means: testing and stable are more tested, otherwise bugs getting fixed in sid much faster. so without updates on a regular base you are lost. Rolling needs to roll.
-
Hmmm...I never said anything in my post about my upgrade preferences. I was merely stating that I have read differently about the update frequency when rolling with Sid.
I'll make one more comment regarding the daily versus other update frequencies. The Siduction manual makes the following recommendation: "...ideally once every week or two..."
http://manual.siduction.org/sys-admin-apt#apt-upgrade (http://manual.siduction.org/sys-admin-apt#apt-upgrade)
which seems more reasonable, to me anyway, than daily updating/upgrading.
-
If that is reasonable for you, go with it. It is within the sane timeframe, even if something goes wrong and you need support. I myself upgrade 3 times per day, but my rationale (and the ones of the other devs) is a different one than yours. We need to catchbreakage when (or before) it happens. We prefer users to upgrade as frequently as is reasonable for them because it helps us to support them when needed.
greetz
devil
-
Rolling needs to roll.
Hah -- very well said, @melmarker, and in fine English too! ;D
-
This make me wonder? Although I don't want to argue about the benefit of doing d-u frequently I wonder how that fits with a rolling distro with in practice two releases a year? If it is that hazardously to do a d-u less than every two weeks then it should be the same hazard to install siduction two weeks and more after every release. That makes it hazardously to do an installation and a d-u in 48 of the 52 weeks every year?
-
That makes it hazardously to do an installation ...?
What hazard? On the installation scenario, the worst that could happen is, it could break the new installation. That's sad, but not really very destructive of anything important. I've done a few of those "6 months after release" installations. It takes time, but I've never had it fail to (eventually) come up to date.
-
vilde: its uncomfortable - but if all upgrades came en bloc it will mostly work - and our situation is far from ideal. But we make plans to change the situation and release more often - with not so big changes between the releases. The only thing about is manpower ...
-
That's good melmarker understand what I mean.
I agree that it's better to do frequent d-u:s, but so far in practice it works quite good not to also. One practice is the few releases that makes most of the newcomers have to install a quite old release most of the time, do a d-u and most of the time it's working. I have managed my mothers computer for maybe three four years now, maybe it's even longer, sometimes I,m not there for three month, it has never failed a d-u yet.