Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #236438 > unrolled thread

Debian stable - updates

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 14:30 +0200
    Re: Debian stable - updates "D. R. Evans" <doc.evans@gmail.com> - 2021-06-25 14:40 +0200
      Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 15:10 +0200
        Re: Debian stable - updates "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-06-25 23:20 +0200
      Re: Debian stable - updates didar <nosferatu@purlo.in> - 2021-06-25 15:30 +0200
        Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 16:00 +0200
      Re: Debian stable - updates steve <dlist@bluewin.ch> - 2021-06-25 16:00 +0200
        Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 18:00 +0200
          Re: Debian stable - updates Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-06-25 18:10 +0200
            Re: Debian stable - updates Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-06-25 18:20 +0200
              Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 18:30 +0200
            Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 18:20 +0200
          Re: Debian stable - updates Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-06-25 21:20 +0200
          Re: Debian stable - updates <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-06-25 21:20 +0200
          Re: Debian stable - updates Francesco Florian <francesco.florian@gmx.com> - 2021-06-25 21:20 +0200
            Re: Debian stable - updates Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 13:00 +0200
              Re: Debian stable - updates Francesco Florian <francesco.florian@gmx.com> - 2021-06-27 09:50 +0200
                Re: Debian stable - updates The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-06-27 13:00 +0200
            Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-26 14:40 +0200
        Re: Debian stable - updates Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 13:30 +0200
          Re: Debian stable - updates John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2021-06-26 15:40 +0200
            Re: Debian stable - updates Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 16:20 +0200
              Re: Debian stable - updates John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2021-06-26 16:50 +0200
            Re: Debian stable - updates Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-06-27 10:10 +0200
              Re: Debian stable - updates Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2021-06-27 10:20 +0200
              Re: Debian stable - updates John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2021-06-27 15:10 +0200
                Re: Debian stable - updates Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-06-27 16:10 +0200
    Re: Debian stable - updates <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-06-25 15:10 +0200
      Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 15:20 +0200
        Re: Debian stable - updates "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-06-25 23:20 +0200
      Re: Debian stable - updates Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 13:20 +0200
    Re: Debian stable - updates "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 00:20 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#236438 — Debian stable - updates

Hi altogether,

as I´m a newcomer to Debian and coming from Lubuntu I searched for 
information as far as the release model is concerned.

I learned that there are three different releases: stable, testing, and 
unstable.

I know I´m not supposed to post any links here but for the sake of 
reference I´ll still do it this time (sorry).
I´m referring to the article  "Debian vs Ubuntu" on 
https://linuxconfig.org/debian-vs-ubuntu .

I quote:

"Debian's stable release is insanely stable. There are few distributions 
in the same league when it comes to rock solid reliability.

[...] There is a tradeoff, though. The software in Debian Stable is 
usually fairly outdated.
In fact, it's usually outdated when the distribution first ships. Now, 
that's not much of a problem for servers, but it's awful for desktops. "

Despite reading through the entire article I couldn´t really understand 
why the author refers to Debian stable as being "awful" for desktops.

So I have a question in order to be clear about the matter.

Is Debian stable safe to use - I mean in the sense that it gets security 
updates for the installed packages?

I don´t really care about updates which would introduce new features of 
programmes. All I´m concerned about is getting security updates so that 
I can use Debian stable as my daily driver.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Many greetings
Rosika

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#236439

Christian wrote on 6/25/21 6:19 AM:
>
> 
> Is Debian stable safe to use - I mean in the sense that it gets security
> updates for the installed packages?
> 

Yes, it does get security updates. It also gets non-security updates for some 
of the most popular packages.

For years I have run debian stable on my main desktop machine (the one I am 
using to type this e-mail). It has had fewer major issues than any other 
distribution I have tried.

   Doc Evans

-- 
Web:  http://enginehousebooks.com/drevans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236441

Hi Doc Evans,

thanks a lot for your reply.

That´s great news indeed.
The fact that Debian stable is rock solid is a great asset in itself. So 
together with security updates it will surely make for a fine production 
system especially for older
computers like my Lenovo H520e desktop.

Thank you for clarifying the matter for me.

Many greetings and keep safe.
Rosika

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236465

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 03:06:57PM +0200, Christian wrote:
> Hi Doc Evans,
> 
> thanks a lot for your reply.
> 
> That´s great news indeed.
> The fact that Debian stable is rock solid is a great asset in itself. So
> together with security updates it will surely make for a fine production
> system especially for older
> computers like my Lenovo H520e desktop.
> 
> Thank you for clarifying the matter for me.
> 
> Many greetings and keep safe.
> Rosika
> 
> 
> 
Debian stable is tested over a couple of years before release and gets 
security support. It's not the latest and greatest, major changes every six
months, supported for nine months.

_Today_ - 25th June 2021 - because we're anticipating a stable release in ~6 
weeks - I might suggest installing that release when it comes out. If you don't and install
Debian 10.10 - Buster - today, then Debian 11 [Bullseye] will come along at 
the end of July if the release goes to plan.

All the very best, as ever,

Andy Cater

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236443

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 06:38:32AM -0600, D. R. Evans wrote:
> Christian wrote on 6/25/21 6:19 AM:
> > 
> > 
> > Is Debian stable safe to use - I mean in the sense that it gets security
> > updates for the installed packages?
> > 
> 
> Yes, it does get security updates. It also gets non-security updates for
> some of the most popular packages.
> 
> For years I have run debian stable on my main desktop machine (the one I am
> using to type this e-mail). It has had fewer major issues than any other
> distribution I have tried.

I would like to second that.

I am currently on Debian Stable since 2019. I migrated away from Ubuntu which I
was using since 2006 and I am much happier.

Regards,
Didar

> 
>   Doc Evans
> 
> -- 
> Web:  http://enginehousebooks.com/drevans
> 

-- 
	Two brothers, Mort and Bill, like to sail.  While Bill has a great
deal of experience, he certainly isn't the rigger Mort is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236447

Hi Didar,

thanks for your opinion as well.
Good to learn there are so many users satisfied with Debian stable.

Many greetings.
Rosika

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236446

Le 25-06-2021, à 06:38:32 -0600, D. R. Evans a écrit :

>For years I have run debian stable on my main desktop machine (the one 
>I am using to type this e-mail). It has had fewer major issues than 
>any other distribution I have tried.

Some even say that Debian is becoming annoying for that very reason…

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236452

Hi again,

so sorry to bother you kind people once more. It turns out I've got an 
additional question regarding  updates.

On https://www.debian.org/security/#keeping-secure under "Keeping your 
Debian system secure" it says:

"You can use apt to easily get the latest security updates. This 
requires a line such as deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security 
buster/updates main contrib non-free
in your /etc/apt/sources.list file. Then execute apt-get update && 
apt-get upgrade"

I looked up  the respective file on my system and it looks like this:

1     #
2
3     # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 10.9.0 _Buster_ - Official amd64 
xfce-CD Binary-1 20210327-10:42]/ buster main
4
5     #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 10.9.0 _Buster_ - Official amd64 
xfce-CD Binary-1 20210327-10:42]/ buster main
6
7     deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster main
8     deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster main
9
10   deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates main
11   deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates main
12
13   # buster-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
14   deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster-updates main
15   deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster-updates main
16
17   # This system was installed using small removable media
18   # (e.g. netinst, live or single CD). The matching "deb cdrom"
19   # entries were disabled at the end of the installation process.
20  # For information about how to configure apt package sources,
21  # see the sources.list(5) manual.

 From the advice given at the debian page (see above) I gather I have to 
change the contents of line 10, right? As there's just "main" in it 
right now I'd have to add "contrib" and "non-free" I think.
But what about line 11? Would I have to do the same there as well?

Thanks a lot in advance for your help.
Many greetings.
Rosika

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236453

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 05:55:18PM +0200, Christian wrote:
> On https://www.debian.org/security/#keeping-secure under "Keeping your
> Debian system secure" it says:
> 
> "You can use apt to easily get the latest security updates. This requires a
> line such as deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates
> main contrib non-free
> in your /etc/apt/sources.list file. Then execute apt-get update && apt-get
> upgrade"
> 
> I looked up  the respective file on my system and it looks like this:
> [...]
> 7     deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster main
> 8     deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster main
> 9
> 10   deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates main
> 11   deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates main

> From the advice given at the debian page (see above) I gather I have to
> change the contents of line 10, right?

It's not necessary at this time.

> As there's just "main" in it right
> now I'd have to add "contrib" and "non-free" I think.

You only need to add contrib and non-free to the security line if you've
also added it to the primary repository line (line 7 in your file).

You're only using "main" right now, so you only need security updates
for main.

If at any time in the future you add contrib and/or non-free to your
primary repository (e.g. to install firmware or microcode), then you'll
want to add it to the security repository as well, so that you pick up
the security patches for those.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236454

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 06:11:17PM +0200, Christian wrote:
> I see. So in case I want it I'd have to add "contrib" and "non-free" in line
> 7 first.
> 
> Perhaps I'm a bit slow to understand, but what about lines 8, 11, 14 and 15
> then? All these also contain just "main". Would they have to be altered as
> well?

You probably want them all to be the same, yes.  It would be a highly
unusual case where you'd want contrib or non-free only in *one* of
your three repositories, or only in binary packages and not source
packages, or vice versa.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236456

Hi Greg,

thank you very much for your help. It's highly appreciated.

It's so good to have have some confirmation by such knowledgeable people 
like you.

So for now I think I won't have to change anything as I'm currently 
running Debian stable in a virtual machine.
Yet when setting it  up as a daily driver (as a main system) I'd 
consider applying the changes especially in view of microcode.

I'm really glad to have learnt something new (to me at least) again.

Thanks a lot for your help.

Many greetings and keep safe.
Rosika

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236455

Hi Greg,

thank you so much for your very quick reply.

 > It's not necessary at this time.

Good to know.

I see. So in case I want it I'd have to add "contrib" and "non-free" in 
line 7 first.

Perhaps I'm a bit slow to understand, but what about lines 8, 11, 14 and 
15 then? All these also contain just "main". Would they have to be 
altered as well?

Thanks a lot.
Rosika

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236459

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 08:44:51PM +0200, Francesco Florian wrote:
> You may want to change all instances of 'buster' to 'stable', so that you don't have to bother changing it whenever new version of debian is released as stable.


STRONG disagree!

You don't want that, because it means that at some point in the near
future, you'll get a shocking surprise as your system half-updates
itself, and probably pukes partway through.

A release upgrade should be planned and executed according to the release
notes, by hand.  Never by automated tools, and never at a time outside
of your direct control.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236460

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 08:44:51PM +0200, Francesco Florian wrote:
> On Fr, 25 Jun 2021, Christian wrote:
> 
> > I looked up  the respective file on my system and it looks like this:
> > 1     #
> > 2
> > 3     # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 10.9.0 _Buster_ - Official amd64
> > xfce-CD Binary-1 20210327-10:42]/ buster main
> > 4
> > 5     #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 10.9.0 _Buster_ - Official amd64
> > xfce-CD Binary-1 20210327-10:42]/ buster main
> > 6
> > 7     deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster main
> > 8     deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster main
> > 9
> > 10   deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates main
> > 11   deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates main
> > 12
> > 13   # buster-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
> > 14   deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster-updates main
> > 15   deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster-updates main
> > 16
> > 17   # This system was installed using small removable media
> > 18   # (e.g. netinst, live or single CD). The matching "deb cdrom"
> > 19   # entries were disabled at the end of the installation process.
> > 20  # For information about how to configure apt package sources,
> > 21  # see the sources.list(5) manual.
> 
> You may want to change all instances of 'buster' to 'stable' [...]

This isn't generally recommended: an upgrade may bring about bigger
changes that you don't want to "just happen" without being prepared.

But hey, it's possible :-)

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236461

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fr, 25 Jun 2021, Christian wrote:

> I looked up  the respective file on my system and it looks like this:
> 1     #
> 2
> 3     # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 10.9.0 _Buster_ - Official amd64
> xfce-CD Binary-1 20210327-10:42]/ buster main
> 4
> 5     #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 10.9.0 _Buster_ - Official amd64
> xfce-CD Binary-1 20210327-10:42]/ buster main
> 6
> 7     deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster main
> 8     deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster main
> 9
> 10   deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates main
> 11   deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates main
> 12
> 13   # buster-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
> 14   deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster-updates main
> 15   deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster-updates main
> 16
> 17   # This system was installed using small removable media
> 18   # (e.g. netinst, live or single CD). The matching "deb cdrom"
> 19   # entries were disabled at the end of the installation process.
> 20  # For information about how to configure apt package sources,
> 21  # see the sources.list(5) manual.

You may want to change all instances of 'buster' to 'stable', so that you don't have to bother changing it whenever new version of debian is released as stable.
This is, if you really want to track 'stable', i.e., automatically switch to the new stable release when it becomes such.
Just my 2c.
-- 
Francesco Florian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236477

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Vi, 25 iun 21, 20:44:51, Francesco Florian wrote:
> 
> You may want to change all instances of 'buster' to 'stable', so that 
> you don't have to bother changing it whenever new version of debian is 
> released as stable.
> This is, if you really want to track 'stable', i.e., automatically 
> switch to the new stable release when it becomes such.
> Just my 2c.

Let me add to the other voices disagreeing with this.

The only potential "benefit" to this is that every two years or so you 
will find yourself in the middle of a partial distribution upgrade[1] 
with no preparation.

It's much better to use the codename instead and subscribe to 
debian-announce (in addition to debian-security-announce, of course). 
When a new release is announced start preparing for the upgrade, you 
have one year to do so.

[1] unless you're one of those still running dist-upgrade for every 
security update, just because `apt-get` doesn't install new packages by 
default. You might want to switch to `apt` instead.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236513

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sa, 26 Jun 2021, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> [1] unless you're one of those still running dist-upgrade for every 
> security update, just because `apt-get` doesn't install new packages by 
> default.

Actually, I'm one of those running on testing, since I believe it's stable
enough for my workflow on a desktop (I snapshot the / and /home volumes
before any upgrade, but in about 5 years I never had to rollback).

I didn't mean that tracking stable instead of buster is what everybody
wants, just that it is a possibility, especially on desktop, provided you
have backups (which you should have anyway).

Best regards
-- 
Francesco Florian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236524

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-06-27 at 03:48, Francesco Florian wrote:

> On Sa, 26 Jun 2021, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
>> [1] unless you're one of those still running dist-upgrade for every
>>  security update, just because `apt-get` doesn't install new
>> packages by default.
> 
> Actually, I'm one of those running on testing, since I believe it's
> stable enough for my workflow on a desktop (I snapshot the / and
> /home volumes before any upgrade, but in about 5 years I never had to
> rollback).
> 
> I didn't mean that tracking stable instead of buster is what
> everybody wants, just that it is a possibility, especially on
> desktop, provided you have backups (which you should have anyway).

For tracking testing, as I also do, using the symbolic name rather than
the explicit codename can make sense.

I actually track stable + testing, by those names, so that if a package
in stable is removed from testing I still have access to install it if I
discover the need to do so. For that purpose, using the symbolic name
for stable also makes sense.

However, for someone tracking *purely* stable without bringing in any of
the other repositories, I have to agree with those who advocate against
using that name instead of the release codename. I haven't been able to
think of any reasons why using the symbolic name in that case would make
sense, and I find the arguments about why doing so can lead to problems
to be persuasive.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236484

Hi and a very good day to all of you, 😁

thank you very much for the new input of yours. You're too kind.

@T.J. Duchene:

Thanks a lot for the warm welcome. That' s really nice. I enjoy it very 
much here.

Your instruction to update policies used by Debian stable is very good; 
I understand it much better now. Thanks a lot.
Stable and well-maintained are exactly what I'm looking for in an OS. So 
Debian stable seems to be perfectly suited for my purposes.
Plus: it's really lightweight (especially with xfce). Ideal for my 
Lenovo H520e. 😉

Thanks again for your kind help.


@Francesco Florian:

 > This is, if you really want to track 'stable', i.e., automatically 
switch to the new stable release when it becomes such.

I see.
Yet personally I'd like to stay at Buster as long as I can.
Thanks for the suggestion anyway.

@Greg Wooledge:

Thanks so much for the warning and the additional info. It's much 
appreciated.


@Tomas:

Thanks to you as well.


@Andrew M.A. Cater

 > If you say buster, then when buster slides to become oldstable, your 
system won't change underneath you suddenly.

Yes, that's exactly how I want it to be.
No nasty surprises and no big downloads (at least for the time being).

My sole means of internet connection is a UMTS-stick with 5 GB data 
available per 28 days. So I have to be able to plan well in advance for 
occasions like that.
Thanks a lot for the info.


@Andrei POPESCU:

 > It's much better to use the codename instead and subscribe to 
debian-announce (in addition to debian-security-announce, of course).
 > When a new release is announced start preparing for the upgrade, you 
have one year to do so.

Wow, that info is really new to me; well I'm just a beginner as far as 
Debian is concerned. But really good to know. Thanks a lot. 😁

 > You might want to switch to `apt` instead.

Indeed I've made it a habit to use "apt" instead of "apt-get" for quite 
a while now.

Thanks for the additional info as well.


So I think (and hope) I understand much better now how Debian updates 
are to be configured and work.
It's really good to have a place to go to and post questions when help 
is needed. You´re a great community! I appreciate it very much. 😉

Thanks again to all of you for your kind help.

A very nice weekend and do keep safe.

Many greetings from Rosika 😁

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236481

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Vi, 25 iun 21, 15:50:56, steve wrote:
> Le 25-06-2021, à 06:38:32 -0600, D. R. Evans a écrit :
> 
> > For years I have run debian stable on my main desktop machine (the one I
> > am using to type this e-mail). It has had fewer major issues than any
> > other distribution I have tried.
> 
> Some even say that Debian is becoming annoying for that very reason…

:)
 
I ran Debian unstable on my main system for many years. It was a great 
learning experience, whether I wanted that or not.

Unstable is challenging when you rely on that system for any kind of 
useful work, regardless if a movie night with friends or a big 
presentation at work, as each and every upgrade has the potential to 
break your system in new and interesting ways.

Eventually I switched mostly to stable because of the time investment 
needed to maintain unstable *and* associated mitigation strategies.

I still have unstable (or testing) installations, e.g. to monitor 
support for my hardware, new developments, etc., but they are rarely (if 
ever) providing any essential service for me.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web