3 ms·

Not all software keeps working for eternity without updates. I happen to be the author of a piece of software packaged by Debian that relies on a third party HT

by oefrha 3y ago

Not all software keeps working for eternity without updates. I happen to be the author of a piece of software packaged by Debian that relies on a third party HTTP endpoint that changes semi-frequently, necessitating fixes to keep it working. We also liberally bump the major version number when there are big new features in addition to whatever fixes are necessary. The end result is Debian refuses to update to a working version, and the version in stable is completely broken more often than not. So we had to discourage Debian (and derivatives) users from installing the distro version, and close all issues they open.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
Why haven't the Debian team removed it then? (Assuming they were notified)
- oefrha 3y ago
  No idea. We talked to the DD about it. Maybe they’re content with the software working in testing and sometimes in stable. Of course in theory they could also try to backport the changes, but I doubt anyone would bother for anything that’s not hugely popular. I’m tired of distro patches generating support load anyway.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Huh that does sound bizarre. What is your software?
    - oefrha 3y ago
      This is a pseudonymous account so I’m won’t disclose the software which will link my identity to it.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      If I were to guess, youtube-dl fits the bill... just like browsers, it has the problem that it needs to update far more frequently than any OS/distro schedule allows.
      - rc00 3y ago
        Except Debian backports yt-dlp for Stable. That's why the answer is backports. If it works for something like yt-dlp, it should work for something similar, especially if it's already in Testing (since that is usually the source for the rebuild for Stable).
rc00 3y ago
Why not get the package added to backports and then instructing users to update? This happens with tons of other similar packages.
- oefrha 3y ago
  It was a long time ago so my memory is fuzzy, I think the DD did briefly touch on that option, but nothing came of it. As a user who has used backports a few times, the experience isn’t that great since it needs to be explicitly configured.
pabs3 3y ago
The solutions here are one of these: Have the maintainer do stable/oldstable updates when backwards compatibility is broken. Have the package removed from Debian stable/testing and have it only in unstable and the new fastrack.debian.net repo.
lost_tourist 3y ago
why not make an appimage for debian and be done with it? I mean let debian do what debian is gonna do but have an appimage and wash your hands and worries of it?
rstuart4133 3y ago
> Not all software keeps working for eternity without updates. True. And yes, Debian stable packages do not work so well if a package needs to undergo frequent updates. As others have pointed out there are work arounds in place - like backports. Or if you want a Ubuntu / Arch like experience, you could try Debian testing. But they are kludges and for some packages the pain got so great Debian was forced to brake it's own rules and pushes new version into stable. But that's rare - Debian stable is so popular because it's stable. The underlying reason for that focus seems to be Debian is a distribution put together by sysadmin's. A large chunk of the DD's (Debian Developers) are sysadmins pooling their resources to produce a distribution they can use in their day job. The two things that matters to them are security and stability. It's not an accident that Debian led the way on reproducible builds. This mob really cares about rock solid and secure. To me Debian model of "sysadmin's pooling their resources" is remarkable. It's one of the few open source driver projects that combines open source and commercial objectives. At its heart is a whole pile of people teaming up in an open source project to create a tool (a server OS) they base their respective (and disparate) commercial products. The open nature of Debian - it's ethos, it's transparency, is critical to why this works so well. It allows the participants who might well be producing competing products to trust each other, and continue to work along side it other for decades now to produce a distribution. It also means it's always going to have a strong server focus. That focus doesn't mean not to say Debian can't be used for a Desktop. A stable base like that is a very attractive thing to build a desktop on, and that's what happened. It's my daily driver, and I think it works wonderfully - but I also hand install some things from outside Debian (like youtube-dlp), and make liberal use of docker containers when I need to pin certain versions for development. It's a bit of work - but as a developer it's stuff I have to do anyway. It created an opportunity to create a derivative that caters to the desktop users who aren't like me and just want the latest shiny - and Ubuntu stepped into it.

by oefrha 3y ago

MichaelZuo 3y ago

Why haven't the Debian team removed it then? (Assuming they were notified)

oefrha 3y ago
No idea. We talked to the DD about it. Maybe they’re content with the software working in testing and sometimes in stable. Of course in theory they could also try to backport the changes, but I doubt anyone would bother for anything that’s not hugely popular. I’m tired of distro patches generating support load anyway.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Huh that does sound bizarre. What is your software?
  - oefrha 3y ago
    This is a pseudonymous account so I’m won’t disclose the software which will link my identity to it.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    If I were to guess, youtube-dl fits the bill... just like browsers, it has the problem that it needs to update far more frequently than any OS/distro schedule allows.
    - rc00 3y ago
      Except Debian backports yt-dlp for Stable. That's why the answer is backports. If it works for something like yt-dlp, it should work for something similar, especially if it's already in Testing (since that is usually the source for the rebuild for Stable).

rc00 3y ago

Why not get the package added to backports and then instructing users to update? This happens with tons of other similar packages.

oefrha 3y ago
It was a long time ago so my memory is fuzzy, I think the DD did briefly touch on that option, but nothing came of it. As a user who has used backports a few times, the experience isn’t that great since it needs to be explicitly configured.

pabs3 3y ago

The solutions here are one of these: Have the maintainer do stable/oldstable updates when backwards compatibility is broken. Have the package removed from Debian stable/testing and have it only in unstable and the new fastrack.debian.net repo.

lost_tourist 3y ago

why not make an appimage for debian and be done with it? I mean let debian do what debian is gonna do but have an appimage and wash your hands and worries of it?

rstuart4133 3y ago

> Not all software keeps working for eternity without updates. True. And yes, Debian stable packages do not work so well if a package needs to undergo frequent updates. As others have pointed out there are work arounds in place - like backports. Or if you want a Ubuntu / Arch like experience, you could try Debian testing. But they are kludges and for some packages the pain got so great Debian was forced to brake it's own rules and pushes new version into stable. But that's rare - Debian stable is so popular because it's stable. The underlying reason for that focus seems to be Debian is a distribution put together by sysadmin's. A large chunk of the DD's (Debian Developers) are sysadmins pooling their resources to produce a distribution they can use in their day job. The two things that matters to them are security and stability. It's not an accident that Debian led the way on reproducible builds. This mob really cares about rock solid and secure. To me Debian model of "sysadmin's pooling their resources" is remarkable. It's one of the few open source driver projects that combines open source and commercial objectives. At its heart is a whole pile of people teaming up in an open source project to create a tool (a server OS) they base their respective (and disparate) commercial products. The open nature of Debian - it's ethos, it's transparency, is critical to why this works so well. It allows the participants who might well be producing competing products to trust each other, and continue to work along side it other for decades now to produce a distribution. It also means it's always going to have a strong server focus. That focus doesn't mean not to say Debian can't be used for a Desktop. A stable base like that is a very attractive thing to build a desktop on, and that's what happened. It's my daily driver, and I think it works wonderfully - but I also hand install some things from outside Debian (like youtube-dlp), and make liberal use of docker containers when I need to pin certain versions for development. It's a bit of work - but as a developer it's stuff I have to do anyway. It created an opportunity to create a derivative that caters to the desktop users who aren't like me and just want the latest shiny - and Ubuntu stepped into it.