Siduction Forum

Siduction Forum => Software - Support => Topic started by: gunmetalsid on 2011/12/30, 20:48:08

Title: adding non siduction repository (CLOSED)
Post by: gunmetalsid on 2011/12/30, 20:48:08
Since flash-player 11 64bit for LinuxMint and pysdm ubuntu all version works flawlessly on my siduction installation, I wonder if I could add non siduction or debian  sid to the repository.  Oneiric Oncelot, may I? If I could, where should I put the repository /etc/apt/sources.list.d/debian.list or siduction.list?

Thanks

siduction = hot and sexy seduction for meh :lol:  :lol:

Regards,
gunmetalsid
Title: RE: adding non siduction repository
Post by: DeepDayze on 2011/12/30, 20:50:42
I wouldn't advise using any Ubuntu repos with siduction as such packages CAN and WILL break your system beyond repair or at least make it impossible to dist-upgrade due to the dependencies that may be involved

for Flash x86_64 you can use the flashplugin-nonfree package available in debian
Title: Re: RE: adding non siduction repository
Post by: gunmetalsid on 2011/12/30, 21:18:42
Quote from: "DeepDayze"I wouldn't advise using any Ubuntu repos with siduction as such packages CAN and WILL break your system beyond repair or at least make it impossible to dist-upgrade due to the dependencies that may be involved

for Flash x86_64 you can use the flashplugin-nonfree package available in debian

yeah, oneiric repos would make my hot sexy siduction into an oncelot. :?
Title: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction repository
Post by: piper on 2012/01/01, 04:42:38
Debian sid is already there, siduction is based on sid

Ubuntu is not binary compatible with debian and like DeepDayze says, it will break your system sooner or later

ubuntu is a six month snapshot, sid updates 4 times a day, that creates FUBAR ;)
Title: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction repository
Post by: DeepDayze on 2012/01/01, 05:14:22
Quote from: "piper"Debian sid is already there, siduction is based on sid

Ubuntu is not binary compatible with debian and like DeepDayze says, it will break your system sooner or later

ubuntu is a six month snapshot, sid updates 4 times a day, that creates FUBAR ;)

yup, like it was said over in the sidux/aptosid forums NEVER use Ubuntu packages and it still applies to siduction too ;)
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction repository
Post by: piper on 2012/01/01, 05:17:43
Actually applies to "debian" in general ;)
Title: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction repository
Post by: gunmetalsid on 2012/01/01, 09:23:59
Quote from: "piper"Actually applies to "debian" in general ;)

well said....
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction repository
Post by: gunmetalsid on 2012/01/12, 04:29:50
what about aptosid repo and liquorix repo? is it ok to use 'em?

i was thinking about using siduction repo on top of aptosid 2011-01 and using aptosid repo on top my siduction 2011.1rc
Title: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction reposit
Post by: michaaa62 on 2012/01/12, 07:59:43
Quote from: "gunmetalsid"what about aptosid repo and liquorix repo? is it ok to use 'em?

i was thinking about using siduction repo on top of aptosid 2011-01 and using aptosid repo on top my siduction 2011.1rc
I would not recommend this at all!

Basically the repos of aptosid and siduction serve the same purpose: Offer a couple of tools and for hotfixed packages, not in Debian yet.

Name convention may prevent a save upgrade path for any given package, because both might have the same numerical version like the original (to be fixed) debian package, but might differ in name by adding siduction (higher starting letter) or aptosid (lower starting letter) to the name.
Also the version of tools are free and may over time deviate.
Title: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction reposit
Post by: devil on 2012/01/12, 08:53:34
Quote
i was thinking about using siduction repo on top of aptosid 2011-01 and using aptosid repo on top my siduction 2011.1rc
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

greetz
devil
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction rep
Post by: gunmetalsid on 2012/01/12, 08:53:35
so I couldn't add debian stable and liquorix too I guess. Though I saw on aptosid forum it was ok to use liquorix and debian stable repository.

I was thinking of adding

deb http://w3you.com/debian sid main contrib non-free
to siduction and kde-qt.list to aptosid

also the liquorix and debian stable repository for both. sorry for the  misunderstanding.

but seems it wasn't possible for siduction anyway.

regards,
gunmetalsid
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction rep
Post by: michaaa62 on 2012/01/12, 09:11:40
Surely you could add liquorix repo for kernel use, you should evaluate, what you need from Debian stable repo as this is very unlikely to ever disrupt safe dist-upgrade path.

We were however discouraging the use of aptosid repo in siduction system or siduction repo in aptosid system.

How do you think the devs of both distribution would answer to your support wishes ;)
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction rep
Post by: gunmetalsid on 2012/01/12, 09:17:07
ok I got it, http://w3you.com exclusively for aptosid and qt-kde.list for siduction. thank god I have two laptop so I could run both, what happen if I only have one laptop? I just can't decide which is best between aptosid and siduction.
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction rep
Post by: devil on 2012/01/12, 10:45:20
Why not decide by which wallpaper you like better? :)

Honestly, you have a desease, Its dangerous and its called repositoryitis.
afaik it was originaly brought into linux by Ubuntu. On their forum i have seen sources.lists longer than my arm. Poor souls, no cure for that yet.

For a normal desktop, siduction brings all the repos you need. And combining sid with stable is just insane.

greetz
devil
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction rep
Post by: ralul on 2012/01/12, 11:04:59
slam session
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction rep
Post by: devil on 2012/01/12, 11:12:39
huh?
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction rep
Post by: ralul on 2012/01/12, 11:26:23
w3you.com
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction rep
Post by: devil on 2012/01/12, 15:37:41
Here is a nice example i came upon in #debian support today:
Package files:
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
    release a=now
700 http://dl.google.com/linux/talkplugin/deb/ stable/main i386 Packages
    release v=1.0,o=Google, Inc.,a=stable,n=stable,l=Google,c=main
    origin dl.google.com
700 http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable/main i386 Packages
    release v=1.0,o=Google, Inc.,a=stable,n=stable,l=Google,c=main
    origin dl.google.com
500 http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/ stable/non-free i386 Packages
    origin download.skype.com
  1 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ lenny-backports/non-free i386 Packages
    release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,n=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=non-free
    origin backports.debian.org
  1 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ lenny-backports/contrib i386 Packages
    release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,n=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=contrib
    origin backports.debian.org
  1 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ lenny-backports/main i386 Packages
    release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,n=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=main
    origin backports.debian.org
650 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ testing/non-free i386 Packages
    release o=Debian,a=testing,n=wheezy,l=Debian,c=non-free
    origin ftp.debian.org
650 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ testing/contrib i386 Packages
    release o=Debian,a=testing,n=wheezy,l=Debian,c=contrib
    origin ftp.debian.org
650 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ testing/main i386 Packages
    release o=Debian,a=testing,n=wheezy,l=Debian,c=main
    origin ftp.debian.org
500 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ squeeze-updates/non-free i386 Packages
    release o=Debian,a=stable-updates,n=squeeze-updates,l=Debian,c=non-free
    origin ftp.debian.org
500 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ squeeze-updates/contrib i386 Packages
    release o=Debian,a=stable-updates,n=squeeze-updates,l=Debian,c=contrib
    origin ftp.debian.org
500 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ squeeze-updates/main i386 Packages
    release o=Debian,a=stable-updates,n=squeeze-updates,l=Debian,c=main
    origin ftp.debian.org
700 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/non-free i386 Packages
    release v=6.0,o=Debian,a=stable,n=squeeze,l=Debian-Security,c=non-free
    origin security.debian.org
700 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/contrib i386 Packages
    release v=6.0,o=Debian,a=stable,n=squeeze,l=Debian-Security,c=contrib
    origin security.debian.org
700 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main i386 Packages
    release v=6.0,o=Debian,a=stable,n=squeeze,l=Debian-Security,c=main
    origin security.debian.org
700 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/non-free i386 Packages
    release v=6.0.3,o=Debian,a=stable,n=squeeze,l=Debian,c=non-free
    origin ftp.us.debian.org
700 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/contrib i386 Packages
    release v=6.0.3,o=Debian,a=stable,n=squeeze,l=Debian,c=contrib
    origin ftp.us.debian.org
700 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
    release v=6.0.3,o=Debian,a=stable,n=squeeze,l=Debian,c=main
    origin ftp.us.debian.org
Pinned packages:
libc6:
 Installed: 2.11.2-10
 Candidate: 2.11.2-10
 Version table:
    2.13-24 0
       650 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ testing/main i386 Packages
*** 2.11.2-10 0
       700 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
       100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
dpkg:
 Installed: 1.15.8.11
 Candidate: 1.15.8.11
 Version table:
    1.16.1.2 0
       650 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ testing/main i386 Packages
*** 1.15.8.11 0
       700 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
       100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
perl:
 Installed: 5.10.1-17squeeze2
 Candidate: 5.10.1-17squeeze2
 Version table:
    5.14.2-6 0
       650 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ testing/main i386 Packages
*** 5.10.1-17squeeze2 0
       700 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
       700 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main i386 Packages
       100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
vlc:
 Installed: (none)
 Candidate: 1.1.3-1squeeze6
 Version table:
    1.1.13-1 0
       650 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ testing/main i386 Packages
    1.1.3-1squeeze6 0
       700 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
       700 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main i386 Packages
libva1:
 Installed: 1.0.14-1
 Candidate: 1.0.14-1
 Version table:
*** 1.0.14-1 0
       650 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ testing/main i386 Packages
       100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
    1.0.1-3 0
       700 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages

No need to tell that it exploded in the users face.
The longer, the better does not apply everywhere.

greetz
devil
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction rep
Post by: hinto on 2012/01/12, 16:08:02
What devil said.
What brought me to Debian was one-stop shopping.
What brought me to siduction (sid) was apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade.
-H
Title: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduction
Post by: gunmetalsid on 2012/01/13, 08:25:43
Quote from: "devil"Why not decide by which wallpaper you like better? :)

Honestly, you have a desease, Its dangerous and its called repositoryitis.
afaik it was originaly brought into linux by Ubuntu. On their forum i have seen sources.lists longer than my arm. Poor souls, no cure for that yet.

For a normal desktop, siduction brings all the repos you need. And combining sid with stable is just insane.

greetz
devil

:lol: Hell I "HATE" Ubuntu. Only becoz Ubuntu is popular the reason I asked these question. Just trying to make some ppl to migrate to siduction. I had no idea it was a crime on siduction.

Like I said I was knoppix die hard fans before I move to Sidux. I hate Ubuntu since the Breezy Badger release. Because you bring it all up, I just wanna say Ubuntu developer and user was full of ignorant fu****** fanboys and elitists. I wanna puked on all their release especially since that damn Unity. So never associated me with that Ubuntu thing.

I move to rpm base because the death of Sidux, come back to sid becoz of Aptosid. Throw me out from this forum if you don't like what I said bout that so called mighty Ubuntu. Thank God Mint is now number one DC, so that stupid, ignorant fu****** fanboys and elitists shut their mouth for a while.

regards,
gunmetalsid  :twisted:
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non siduc
Post by: piper on 2012/01/13, 09:20:04
Mint = Ubuntu no matter how you slice it.

Mint does have a version based on Debian.

Linux Mint Debian Edition (LMDE) based on Debian Testing (http://www.linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php).



From the Faqs at Linux Mint

QuoteFAQ about LMDE
1. Is LMDE compatible with Ubuntu-based Linux Mint editions?

No, it is not. LMDE is compatible with Debian, which isn't compatible with Ubuntu.

I am very glad to see that, many people don't know that fact
Title: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non s
Post by: gunmetalsid on 2012/01/13, 11:04:21
Quote from: "piper"Mint = Ubuntu no matter how you slice it.

Mint does have a version based on Debian.

Linux Mint Debian Edition (LMDE) based on Debian Testing (http://www.linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php).



From the Faqs at Linux Mint

QuoteFAQ about LMDE
1. Is LMDE compatible with Ubuntu-based Linux Mint editions?

No, it is not. LMDE is compatible with Debian, which isn't compatible with Ubuntu.

I am very glad to see that, many people don't know that fact

I know bout that, even crunchbang was base from ubuntu before moving to debian. pclos and mageia was a fork of mandriva. and siduction was fork of aptosid.

even mint was base on ubuntu, did they use that stupid Unity? Nope Clem developed mate, mgse and the latest desktop is cinnamon.

I was using linux fully since 2000, and I know many distro up and down. I'm totally a newbie, and I don't give a damn when ppl said if you know how to code something or even fixing sound and resolution you're not a newbie. I'm a newbie and I'm proud of it.

regards,
gunmetalsid
Title: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding non s
Post by: ralul on 2012/01/13, 14:18:36
@gunmetalsid
I don't hate ubuntu. I even recommend it for newbies sometimes when it seems adequat to me. And nobody gets dumped here. Only if you recommend places where trojans are waiting ...

The question remains: Why do you mention the slam private repo in two threads? This seems really unmotivated to me as there is only one newer umts helper application in the moment.

Though there was a "hating" interaction between us and slam in the past. Not that beautiful ...

The most easy way to not include foreign repos: Ask here for some new application to include.
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding n
Post by: hinto on 2012/01/13, 15:02:09
@gunmetalsid It's not a crime on siduction; It's a crime in Debian.  Not that the Linux police will come and get you, but Ubuntu is a fork of Debian.  It starts out with a snapshot of Debian unstable every six months.  They then "fix" their snapshot with testing/backports/forks of the original source, etc.  Then it gets packaged as a release.  It's kinda like making sausage (or chicken nuggets). Is this good or bad?  That is in the eyes of the beholder.  But that is why, in general, Ubuntu repos aren't compatible with Debian.  Case in point: If I download the UltraEdit deb (for Ubuntu) it will not install on m Debian distro.
-Hinto
Title: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: adding n
Post by: gunmetalsid on 2012/01/13, 17:37:46
Ubuntu LTS is using Debian Testing as base, while Ubuntu Stable using Debian Unstable????? WTF!!!! How can something Unstable become Stable?????

I'm sorry, it was just me and my big mouth. I should close this thread immediately.

regards,
gunmetalsid