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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #175489 > unrolled thread

Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"?

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

Contents

  Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"? Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 00:50 +0100
    Re: Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2016-12-07 01:40 +0100
      Re: Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"? Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:30 +0100
        Re: Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"? Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 15:10 +0100
          Re: Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"? Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 15:20 +0100
        Re: Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 15:20 +0100
    Re: Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"? maderios <maderios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 15:30 +0100
      Re: Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"? Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 12:10 +0100
        Re: Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2016-12-08 12:20 +0100
        Re: Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 12:30 +0100
          Re: Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"? Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 12:50 +0100
          Re: Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"? Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2016-12-11 08:50 +0100

#175489 — Advantages of Debian "backports" over "testing"?

Hi,

what are advantages of using Debian "backports"("jessie-backports" in
sources.list file) over "testing"("testing" in sources.list file)? As
I understand, "backports" does not have all the packages from
"testing". On the other hand, packages in "backports" are specially
recompiled for "stable" so I guess they might provide better
stability(?).


thanks,
Martin

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#175490

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:45:45AM +0200, Martin T wrote:
> 
> what are advantages of using Debian "backports"("jessie-backports" in
> sources.list file) over "testing"("testing" in sources.list file)? As
> I understand, "backports" does not have all the packages from
> "testing". On the other hand, packages in "backports" are specially
> recompiled for "stable" so I guess they might provide better
> stability(?).
> 

Suppose that you have a webserver that depends on OpenSSL, libc,
and, oh, libasn1.

All of those libraries are likely to get new versions in
testing. If you upgrade your webserver to testing, they all come
along for the ride.

On the other hand, upgrade your webserver to a backports
version, and the webserver has been compiled against the libs
you already have.

Meanwhile, your mail server also needs OpenSSL and libc, and 
you don't want to push that to new versions yet...

-dsr-

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

#175504

Dan,

> On the other hand, upgrade your webserver to a backports version,
> and the webserver has been compiled against the libs you already have.

thanks! Is this also one of the reasons why not all packages in
testing are available via backports? I mean I could imagine that there
are packages which require some features which are provided only by
libraries available for "testing" and thus the package can not be
available via backports.


thanks,
Martin

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:45:45AM +0200, Martin T wrote:
>>
>> what are advantages of using Debian "backports"("jessie-backports" in
>> sources.list file) over "testing"("testing" in sources.list file)? As
>> I understand, "backports" does not have all the packages from
>> "testing". On the other hand, packages in "backports" are specially
>> recompiled for "stable" so I guess they might provide better
>> stability(?).
>>
>
> Suppose that you have a webserver that depends on OpenSSL, libc,
> and, oh, libasn1.
>
> All of those libraries are likely to get new versions in
> testing. If you upgrade your webserver to testing, they all come
> along for the ride.
>
> On the other hand, upgrade your webserver to a backports
> version, and the webserver has been compiled against the libs
> you already have.
>
> Meanwhile, your mail server also needs OpenSSL and libc, and
> you don't want to push that to new versions yet...
>
> -dsr-

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

#175505

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:25:17PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> > On the other hand, upgrade your webserver to a backports version,
> > and the webserver has been compiled against the libs you already have.
> 
> thanks! Is this also one of the reasons why not all packages in
> testing are available via backports? I mean I could imagine that there
> are packages which require some features which are provided only by
> libraries available for "testing" and thus the package can not be
> available via backports.
> 
> 

That, and the fact that it takes effort to backport things, it can 
sometimes be quite hard, and the people doing it aren't getting paid to. 
So the things that get backported tend to be the things that either the 
package maintainer wants, or that there is a lot of demand (and hence a 
high chance of appreciation) for.

Mark

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

#175508

Understood. Thanks!


Martin

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:25:17PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
>> Dan,
>>
>> > On the other hand, upgrade your webserver to a backports version,
>> > and the webserver has been compiled against the libs you already have.
>>
>> thanks! Is this also one of the reasons why not all packages in
>> testing are available via backports? I mean I could imagine that there
>> are packages which require some features which are provided only by
>> libraries available for "testing" and thus the package can not be
>> available via backports.
>>
>>
>
> That, and the fact that it takes effort to backport things, it can
> sometimes be quite hard, and the people doing it aren't getting paid to.
> So the things that get backported tend to be the things that either the
> package maintainer wants, or that there is a lot of demand (and hence a
> high chance of appreciation) for.
>
> Mark
>

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

#175507

On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 08:25:17 AM Martin T wrote:
> > On the other hand, upgrade your webserver to a backports version,
> > and the webserver has been compiled against the libs you already have.
> 
> thanks! Is this also one of the reasons why not all packages in
> testing are available via backports? I mean I could imagine that there
> are packages which require some features which are provided only by
> libraries available for "testing" and thus the package can not be
> available via backports.

And just to add to the discussion (I hope), note that not all packages in 
testing are necessarily in backports, whether it is possible or not.

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

#175509

On 12/07/2016 12:45 AM, Martin T wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what are advantages of using Debian "backports"("jessie-backports" in
> sources.list file) over "testing"("testing" in sources.list file)? As

Hi
You can't compare, they are completely different. Backport packages have 
stable/Jessie compatibility. Testing/Stretch and Sid are very close to 
each other. Very far from stable/jessie-backports/Jessie.

-- 
Maderios

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

#175548

One more question regarding Debian backports- is it a good practice to
prefer latest versions from backports(jessie-backports) by default
while using stable(jessie) distribution? I mean something like this:

# cat /etc/apt/preferences.d/00_jessie-backports
Explanation: Change pin-priority to
Explanation: 500 for all backported
Explanation: packages.
Package: *
Pin: release n=jessie-backports
Pin-Priority: 500
#

Configuration above would change the priority of "jessie-backports"
from 100 to 500 and thus versions from jessie-backports would be
installed because those are newer than the versions in stable(jessie).
Or is it a better practice to cherry-pick packages from "jessie-backports"?


thanks,
Martin

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:25 PM, maderios <maderios@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/07/2016 12:45 AM, Martin T wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> what are advantages of using Debian "backports"("jessie-backports" in
>> sources.list file) over "testing"("testing" in sources.list file)? As
>
>
> Hi
> You can't compare, they are completely different. Backport packages have
> stable/Jessie compatibility. Testing/Stretch and Sid are very close to each
> other. Very far from stable/jessie-backports/Jessie.
>
> --
> Maderios
>

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

#175549

Hi Martin,

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:06:55PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
> is it a good practice to prefer latest versions from
> backports(jessie-backports) by default while using stable(jessie)
> distribution?

[…]

> Or is it a better practice to cherry-pick packages from "jessie-backports"?

Personally I only ever cherry-pick from backports because there is
normally a specific package I want, and I don't want the behaviour
of the entire rest of my system to potentially change.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

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

#175550

On Thursday 08 December 2016 11:06:55 Martin T wrote:
> One more question regarding Debian backports- is it a good practice to
> prefer latest versions from backports(jessie-backports) by default
> while using stable(jessie) distribution? 

Definitely not.

[snip]
> Or is it a better practice to cherry-pick packages from "jessie-backports"?

Yes.

Lisi
>
>
> thanks,
> Martin
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:25 PM, maderios <maderios@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/07/2016 12:45 AM, Martin T wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> what are advantages of using Debian "backports"("jessie-backports" in
> >> sources.list file) over "testing"("testing" in sources.list file)? As
> >
> > Hi
> > You can't compare, they are completely different. Backport packages have
> > stable/Jessie compatibility. Testing/Stretch and Sid are very close to
> > each other. Very far from stable/jessie-backports/Jessie.
> >
> > --
> > Maderios

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

#175552

Ok, understood. Thank you!


Martin

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 December 2016 11:06:55 Martin T wrote:
>> One more question regarding Debian backports- is it a good practice to
>> prefer latest versions from backports(jessie-backports) by default
>> while using stable(jessie) distribution?
>
> Definitely not.
>
> [snip]
>> Or is it a better practice to cherry-pick packages from "jessie-backports"?
>
> Yes.
>
> Lisi
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>> Martin
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:25 PM, maderios <maderios@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 12/07/2016 12:45 AM, Martin T wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> what are advantages of using Debian "backports"("jessie-backports" in
>> >> sources.list file) over "testing"("testing" in sources.list file)? As
>> >
>> > Hi
>> > You can't compare, they are completely different. Backport packages have
>> > stable/Jessie compatibility. Testing/Stretch and Sid are very close to
>> > each other. Very far from stable/jessie-backports/Jessie.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Maderios
>

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

#175612

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

On 09/12/16 00:30, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Thursday 08 December 2016 11:06:55 Martin T wrote:
>> > One more question regarding Debian backports- is it a good practice to
>> > prefer latest versions from backports(jessie-backports) by default
>> > while using stable(jessie) distribution? 
> Definitely not.
> 
> [snip]
>> > Or is it a better practice to cherry-pick packages from "jessie-backports"?
> Yes.

To expand slightly - stable gets security updates; backports may be a
little slower to get them, and may just get the next version instead.

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web