General handling of backports.

johnraff · 2015-11-02 07:55:08

Along with the default bunsen-hydrogen repository there is also a BunsenLabs jessie-backports repo. This repository can be added either by editing some system files or via the bl-welcome script, and lets users upgrade, for example, xfce4-power-manager to a version that provides a system tray icon. There are also plans to add the dialogue app yad and possibly pnmixer. Most of these applications are already in other Debian distributions, Stretch or Sid, but pnmixer is available only from GitHub.

While using packages like this brings enhancements and fixes annoyances it is also riskier because these packages get less rigourous checking and less frequent security upgrades than those in the default Debian Stable repositories, so there is always a compromise between stability and functionality in deciding what to use.

While using backports is a post-install user choice at the moment, the development team have been mulling over the possibility of including some (probably not many) backported or independently compiled (like pnmixer) packages in the default BunsenLabs install to work round one or two otherwise unfixable issues. We'd like some opinions from the BunsenLabs community before making a final decision on this.

BACKPORTS IN ISO

A better out of the box experience for new users.
A more polished product.
Fewer bugs and more features.

NO BACKPORTS IN ISO

Safety, stability
BL might be able to claim it's "Pure Debian".
BL users more likely to be helped on the Debian Forums?

Please add your own comments, pro or con!

Head_on_a_Stick · 2015-11-02 08:43:46

+1 for backports.

If BL is going to offer non-free firmware, flash & libdvdcss2 then it seems silly not to include selected backports as well.

djzk · 2015-11-02 11:10:43

+1 Like it, use it.
However, while there are a lot of advantages to backports, there are also some disadvantages as well. For me, stability is the biggest Contra.

altman · 2015-11-02 11:39:08

+1 on Backports also here .

dolly · 2015-11-02 12:35:24

Backports ok, as long as it doesn't conflict with safety and stability. I am not too picky about being "Pure Debian" either , if it gives me a better ootb experience, with no bugs and more features. And about Debin forums...well let's just say that one has to take certain precautions when interacting there.

hhh · 2015-11-02 13:57:54

@johnraff, great summary of the issue, thanks! My next ramblings are a bit stream-of-consciousness, sorry.

re: pnmixer, I posted backports for pnmixer over 2 weeks ago, and when I checked yesterday they had been downloaded only a dozen times. So, I'm guessing that either volti is not an issue for most users or that they're finding their own workarounds without using the forums as a resource.

If you do come to the forums and pose a question about installing this or that program, we have plenty of people here who will warn you of the riskiness of installing such and such software and then, that being said, help you install it.

As it is now, RC1 contains only jessie software plus Bunsen scripts and themes OOTB. There's something comforting about that, and it's easy enough for us to put together an "I've installed Hydrogen, now what?" thread that offers tips like "lighter alternatives to volti" and "pulseaudio causes problems for some, how do I remove it?"

OK, my counterpoint to myself is that jessie is stable because it's been pretty rigorously tested and then receives only security updates. Any updates that introduce new features are done so via backports. Am I wrong in thinking then that if a backport is going to break your system, you'll find out sooner rather than later?

BTW, we don't offer libdvdcss2 ATM, do we? It's not in the RC1 ISOs by default. We offer to add deb-multimedia via bl-welcome, but you still have to add the packages yourselves.

Also, Debby Downer says we'll never be part of official Debian because we include non-free, we don't have translations and, since we use live-build, we only run on i386 and amd64.

redcollective · 2015-11-02 22:35:54

+1 for backports if they are the best and necessary solution.

As an end user I'm happy for the devs to deliver top down decision making on what gets in, provided there's a process around those decisions (which I've raised on another thread).

In order of priority: Stability 1, Functionality 2

It's probably broadly in line with what you might call (indulge me a little) the 'Crunchbang way' - correct me if I'm wrong but CB had an especially built tint2 didn't it?

red

hhh · 2015-11-02 22:40:48

It had pnmixer compiled from git as well.

We haven't discussed the security issues that having backports by default raise. Then again, we all run community and non-free, and those repos don't get security updates, AFAIK...
https://www.debian.org/security/faq

-edit-
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/

tknomanzr · 2015-11-02 22:51:57

Agree with red on the backports being necessary and best solution.

Would love to see some sort of archive similar to arch's aur for the quantity of user supplied and supported stuff as well. I am not sure how to go about that but it would be nice to have that little something extra without having do dig 200 pages down into Tips, Tricks and Scripts for that one thing you want that for whatever reason isn't in the "Official" Bunsen repositories (and you know it will eventually happen). Granted something like that would be "use at your own risk and don't cry if it blows up your install" and might or might not get updates depending on how well the contributor stays up on it. However, just in the short time this forum has been up, a bunch of cool stuff has already been created. I just don't know that official Bunsen backports would be the best place for that stuff.

altman · 2015-11-02 23:00:04

hhh wrote:

It had pnmixer compiled from git as well.
We haven't discussed the security issues that having backports by default raise. Then again, we all run community and non-free, and those repos don't get security updates, AFAIK...
https://www.debian.org/security/faq
-edit-
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/

Bookmarked , thanx for the link here mate .

Head_on_a_Stick · 2015-11-03 08:03:06

hhh wrote:

we all run community and non-free, and those repos don't get security updates, AFAIK...
https://www.debian.org/security/faq

The FAQ is incorrect -- the security team does provide patches for contrib & non-free.

See the suggested sources line on the official debian.org security page:
https://www.debian.org/security/

pvsage · 2015-11-03 08:03:48

If we absolutely must compile something from outside the Debian stream, should it be in a -backports repo or in the main hydrogen repo? Also, is it really a good idea to give our backports repo the same designation as Debian's stable -backports? Would calling our backports repo hydrogen-backports reduce the risk of version collisions?

Head_on_a_Stick · 2015-11-03 08:05:46

pvsage wrote:

is it really a good idea to give our backports repo the same designation as Debian's stable -backports? Would calling our backports repo hydrogen-backports reduce the risk of version collisions?

This was asked before (can't find the link) and nobody stated that packages in the Debian jessie-backports repository would not be included in the BunsenLabs version.

If any BL backports make it into the offficial jessie-backports, they will be dropped from BL backports, AFAIUI.

pvsage · 2015-11-03 08:13:43

^ Good enough for me.

ghorvath · 2016-03-23 19:22:25

I like that bl-welcome asks for adding jessie-backports to the sources list, but I would be against installing anything from backports, unless the user explicitly asks for it. E.g. I like the way xfce4-power-manager is handled: bl-welcome asks the user if they want to install it.

BTW, why is bunsenlabs jessie-backports repo not asked to be added to the sources list on desktop machines? I just installed rc2 on a desktop machine, and it asked for the usual jessie-backports repo to be added, but not for bunsenlabs jessie-backports.

damo · 2016-03-23 20:24:00

ghorvath wrote:

....
BTW, why is bunsenlabs jessie-backports repo not asked to be added to the sources list on desktop machines? I just installed rc2 on a desktop machine, and it asked for the usual jessie-backports repo to be added, but not for bunsenlabs jessie-backports.

Because it isn't needed for the laptop power management. Maybe that will change in the future....

#1 2015-11-02 07:55:08

General handling of backports.

#2 2015-11-02 08:43:46

Re: General handling of backports.

#3 2015-11-02 11:10:43

Re: General handling of backports.

#4 2015-11-02 11:39:08

Re: General handling of backports.

#5 2015-11-02 12:35:24

Re: General handling of backports.

#6 2015-11-02 13:57:54

Re: General handling of backports.

#7 2015-11-02 22:35:54

Re: General handling of backports.

#8 2015-11-02 22:40:48

Re: General handling of backports.

#9 2015-11-02 22:51:57

Re: General handling of backports.

#10 2015-11-02 23:00:04

Re: General handling of backports.

#11 2015-11-03 08:03:06

Re: General handling of backports.

#12 2015-11-03 08:03:48

Re: General handling of backports.

#13 2015-11-03 08:05:46

Re: General handling of backports.

#14 2015-11-03 08:13:43

Re: General handling of backports.

#15 2016-03-23 19:22:25

Re: General handling of backports.

#16 2016-03-23 20:24:00

Re: General handling of backports.

Board footer