5 ms·

Maybe to get the latest up to date version? I know Debian can lag behind having the latest packages

kop316 8y ago
I can understand that logic, however it looks like it isn't too far behind (2.2.x versus 2.6.x). The PPA points to 2.4.x, (https://launchpad.net/~wireshark-dev/+archive/ubuntu/stable https://launchpad.net/~wireshark-dev/+archive/ubuntu/stable) so even the PPA doesn't have the latest. The official website recommends installing it from the official Debian repository(https://www.wireshark.org/download.html https://www.wireshark.org/download.html). My greater concern with recommending that is PPA's may not be by the official folks, and PPA's tend to be for Ubuntu rather than Debian, resulting in a "FrankenDebian" (https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian), and while that PPA seems to be run by the official devs, PPAs can be set up by anyone, which runs into the whole concern of blindly trusting other's code on your system. EDIT: Here is what the official Debian website says on it: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianSoftware#Footnotes https://wiki.debian.org/DebianSoftware#Footnotes (Footnote 1).
lucb1e 8y ago
If you want up to date software, you should just run Debian testing (or some other distribution/OS). In Debian, testing lags a few days behind unstable to make sure that things aren't breaking and then pushes the update.
- IncRnd 8y ago
  > If you want up to date software, you should just run Debian testing (or some other distribution/OS). Telling people to run a new OS in order to get an updated version of Wireshark is crazy. If people only want a single updated package, then it is perfectly fine to include the updated PPA.
  - kop316 8y ago
    PPAs tend to be for Ubuntu only, and is not meant for other Debian-based distros. Ubuntu and other distros will be pegged to other libraries, and mixing libraries on an OS is not a good idea. If you really want the updated package, I would recommend compiling from source. EDIT: I should point out that have a valid point that if you want to run up to date software, Debian is probably not the Distro you want to use. Ubuntu is a Debian based Distro that tends to have more up to date software. However, I like using Debian as I rarely need the most up to date software, and I have never had an update go bad on Debian.
    - IncRnd 8y ago
      Good points. Thank you. I totally get that a FrankenDebian type of system can result from mixing packages from outside of Debian with a base Debian system. What I really wanted to convey was that saying someone should run Debian unstable or some other OS in order to update a single package is not reasonable - that it is far more reasonable for a person to take point updates using a PPA in such a case.
      - kop316 8y ago
        I agree with that point. Debian has a repository known as backports (https://backports.debian.org/ https://backports.debian.org/). But they note that it is not as well tested as the stable repository, and it is on an as-is basis, so not all packages are in there. However, Debian Stable is not the distro you want to run if you want the latest packages. I think Ubuntu and Arch are two distros that do that more? I have not looked around for new distros in several years, Debian is my OS of choice.
        IncRnd 8y ago
        I've used debian and arch (on different machines of course) for years. I like that debian never breaks. On the other hand, I like the rolling release model of arch. :)
        kop316 8y ago
  - xorcist 8y ago
    That's generally not what Debian users do. You can "pin" only specific packages from Debian testing. It's not guaranteed to work, but for end user facing software that nothing else links to, like Wireshark, it's likely to be completely fine. But no guarantees. The search term is probably "apt pinning" but it's also in the Debian Wiki. If you find that you'd rather rebuild the latest source package, you can rebuild the latest source package (apt build-dep will even install the build environment for you) and all the Debian specific patches will be included.
- gbuk2013 8y ago
  You should not use Debian Testing (unless you are testing) because it does not get security updates like stable.[1] You should either use Debian Stable with "stable-updates" or use Debian Sid if you want the latest stuff. [1] https://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing https://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing
  - chungy 8y ago
    Debian testing is pretty fine, especially if you need newer software than the current stable, and want to be transitioned into the stable state once it becomes that. I especially tend to install it (or upgrade to it) on servers during freeze time.
    - gbuk2013 8y ago
      https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/07/msg00374.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/07/msg00374.html provides some links that are in line with my experience. YMMV of course. Quote: One user described the releases this way: "Stable is never broken; Unstable is immediately fixed; Testing is neither" [3]. A Debian developer seemingly agreed, responding "That's because some things might break in testing during migration. E.g., when we upload a new major release of something like MATE and half of the packages take a bit longer to migrate to testing, you end up with half of the packages of MATE in testing on the old major version and the other half being on the new major version. This will definitely break" [4]. Chris Lamb also seemed to agree, asking the user why he had not considered Unstable over Testing [4].
      - chungy 8y ago
        This tends to be why I use testing almost only when the freeze has happened. Much less chance for breakage (closer to current stable)
- sethrin 8y ago
  Caveat: testing will get security fixes more slowly than any other flavor of Debian. It's not really ideal as a rolling-release distro.

I can understand that logic, however it looks like it isn't too far behind (2.2.x versus 2.6.x). The PPA points to 2.4.x, (https://launchpad.net/~wireshark-dev/+archive/ubuntu/stable https://launchpad.net/~wireshark-dev/+archive/ubuntu/stable) so even the PPA doesn't have the latest. The official website recommends installing it from the official Debian repository(https://www.wireshark.org/download.html https://www.wireshark.org/download.html). My greater concern with recommending that is PPA's may not be by the official folks, and PPA's tend to be for Ubuntu rather than Debian, resulting in a "FrankenDebian" (https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian), and while that PPA seems to be run by the official devs, PPAs can be set up by anyone, which runs into the whole concern of blindly trusting other's code on your system. EDIT: Here is what the official Debian website says on it: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianSoftware#Footnotes https://wiki.debian.org/DebianSoftware#Footnotes (Footnote 1).

lucb1e 8y ago

If you want up to date software, you should just run Debian testing (or some other distribution/OS). In Debian, testing lags a few days behind unstable to make sure that things aren't breaking and then pushes the update.

IncRnd 8y ago
> If you want up to date software, you should just run Debian testing (or some other distribution/OS). Telling people to run a new OS in order to get an updated version of Wireshark is crazy. If people only want a single updated package, then it is perfectly fine to include the updated PPA.
- kop316 8y ago
  PPAs tend to be for Ubuntu only, and is not meant for other Debian-based distros. Ubuntu and other distros will be pegged to other libraries, and mixing libraries on an OS is not a good idea. If you really want the updated package, I would recommend compiling from source. EDIT: I should point out that have a valid point that if you want to run up to date software, Debian is probably not the Distro you want to use. Ubuntu is a Debian based Distro that tends to have more up to date software. However, I like using Debian as I rarely need the most up to date software, and I have never had an update go bad on Debian.
  - IncRnd 8y ago
    Good points. Thank you. I totally get that a FrankenDebian type of system can result from mixing packages from outside of Debian with a base Debian system. What I really wanted to convey was that saying someone should run Debian unstable or some other OS in order to update a single package is not reasonable - that it is far more reasonable for a person to take point updates using a PPA in such a case.
    - kop316 8y ago
      I agree with that point. Debian has a repository known as backports (https://backports.debian.org/ https://backports.debian.org/). But they note that it is not as well tested as the stable repository, and it is on an as-is basis, so not all packages are in there. However, Debian Stable is not the distro you want to run if you want the latest packages. I think Ubuntu and Arch are two distros that do that more? I have not looked around for new distros in several years, Debian is my OS of choice.
      - IncRnd 8y ago
        I've used debian and arch (on different machines of course) for years. I like that debian never breaks. On the other hand, I like the rolling release model of arch. :)
        kop316 8y ago
- xorcist 8y ago
  That's generally not what Debian users do. You can "pin" only specific packages from Debian testing. It's not guaranteed to work, but for end user facing software that nothing else links to, like Wireshark, it's likely to be completely fine. But no guarantees. The search term is probably "apt pinning" but it's also in the Debian Wiki. If you find that you'd rather rebuild the latest source package, you can rebuild the latest source package (apt build-dep will even install the build environment for you) and all the Debian specific patches will be included.
gbuk2013 8y ago
You should not use Debian Testing (unless you are testing) because it does not get security updates like stable.[1] You should either use Debian Stable with "stable-updates" or use Debian Sid if you want the latest stuff. [1] https://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing https://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing
- chungy 8y ago
  Debian testing is pretty fine, especially if you need newer software than the current stable, and want to be transitioned into the stable state once it becomes that. I especially tend to install it (or upgrade to it) on servers during freeze time.
  - gbuk2013 8y ago
    https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/07/msg00374.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/07/msg00374.html provides some links that are in line with my experience. YMMV of course. Quote: One user described the releases this way: "Stable is never broken; Unstable is immediately fixed; Testing is neither" [3]. A Debian developer seemingly agreed, responding "That's because some things might break in testing during migration. E.g., when we upload a new major release of something like MATE and half of the packages take a bit longer to migrate to testing, you end up with half of the packages of MATE in testing on the old major version and the other half being on the new major version. This will definitely break" [4]. Chris Lamb also seemed to agree, asking the user why he had not considered Unstable over Testing [4].
    - chungy 8y ago
      This tends to be why I use testing almost only when the freeze has happened. Much less chance for breakage (closer to current stable)
sethrin 8y ago
Caveat: testing will get security fixes more slowly than any other flavor of Debian. It's not really ideal as a rolling-release distro.