I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

Julie8484 · 2017-04-18 20:04:32

It is in Italian but I can clearly see in one of the steps in welcome script ?

Is this mean that is ok to chose one of the backports or both ?

How safe are they ? Can this really mess up the whole system ?

Is this will be in Deuterium final iso ?

damo · 2017-04-18 20:46:42

Debian Backports are official Debian packages backported from Testing;

Bunsenlabs Backports contains packages backported from Debian testing and imported from Ubuntu, specifically for BL (an example is a newer version of Tint2. Contents of the repo: https://www.bunsenlabs.org/repoidx.html … -backports)

Depending on what you want to install, you can enable either of them. https://www.bunsenlabs.org/repositories.htm

It should be completely safe, since they are for installation on a Stable system, and BL is based on Debian Stable. BL Deuterium is a point release of BL Hydrogen (with some tweaks and improvements), and so is also Stable.

Last edited by damo (2017-04-18 21:31:40)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-04-19 06:21:38

Julie8484 wrote:

How safe are they ?

Compared to the packages that you will find in the Debian stable repositories, software from jessie-backports may introduce new bugs and security vulnerabilities.

I would not advise using backported packages unless there is a specific need.

https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian … f_Syndrome

johnraff · 2017-04-19 09:39:14

Julie8484 wrote:

Can this really mess up the whole system ?

This is unlikely, but as Head_on_a_Stick says, you should only install packages from the backports repositories that you have a definite need for.

Just adding the repositories themselves, via the bl-welcome script, will do no harm.

Julie8484 · 2017-04-19 14:07:04

earlybird wrote:

johnraff wrote:
Julie8484 wrote:
Can this really mess up the whole system ?
This is unlikely, but as Head_on_a_Stick says, you should only install packages from the backports repositories that you have a definite need for.
Just adding the repositories themselves, via the bl-welcome script, will do no harm.
Debian likes to pretend that using packages from a "backports" repository is inherently less safe than from the main repository. The BunsenLabs backports repository, just like the Debian backports repository, provides useful additions to your system if a software is not available in the stable DEbian repository, or useful upgrades to your system if the software in the stable repository is too old.
The Debian release model does not fit every kind of software that is part of Debian, and oftentimes, due to the insane amount of software in Debian, Debian fails to update a package even between releases (as in : a package version originally in wheezy just got imported into jessie without updating it, even though upstream released ten new versions in the meantime), or refuses to package because an author did not make a release in the meantime but always commits straight to a git master branch (inconsistently handled policy anyway). Marginally used packages just do not receive enough attention: bug fixes, testing, updates. IMO it's fine to keep a core set of packages (linux kernel, graphics stack) under strict control and update the rest on a rolling basis.
BL jessie-backports is maintained in this spirit – people who want modern software, even on Debian stable, shall have it. The number of packages in there is limited because I'm only 1 person, and because it's only a complement to the actual jessie-backports distribution by Debian itself.
So, in BunsenLabs jessie-backports, there are some pieces of software you IMO should prefer over what is in the stable Debian repositories:
tint2, because the developer o9000 is very active on this forum and delivers useful improvements and bug fixes all the time,
compton, because the version in Debian stable is even older and more broken,
screenfetch, for the same reason as above,
neofetch, for the same reason as above.
The rest is really just extras.

So you recommend bunselabs backports or it is ok to active Debian backports and BunsenLabs jessie-backports

geekosupremo · 2017-04-19 16:01:43

Julie8484 wrote:

So you recommend bunselabs backports or it is ok to active Debian backports and BunsenLabs jessie-backports

Recommendation comes from your use case.

For example you need the single newest version of Samba available for security audit reasons, then using the backported version is recommended.

Or

You have a shiny new laptop and there are bits of software that are simply not running, because of incompatiblities with the "stable" version. But these were fixed in a newer version, which happens to be in backports, again use backported version.

If Debian Stable (and Bunsen Labs by proxy) runs without issue, and you do not have a need for the single newest versions of the applications, then you do not need backports.

The backported versions will only install when explicitly asked for. Thus you can safely have them in your apt sources if you want. But if you don't need them you can also safely leave them out. This is really a question of personal need/want.

---------------------------------

If you're looking for a "best practice", I'd say don't add them till you need them. <-- Take this advice with a grain of salt, I am just an average user.

Last edited by geekosupremo (2017-04-19 16:02:10)

Sector11 · 2017-04-19 16:27:23

^ Best answer yet.

I have a 'few' aliases that do what I need done:

alias get='sudo apt-get install --no-install-recommends'

and for backports:

alias getbp='sudo apt-get -t jessie-backports install --no-install-recommends'

and 'appver'

 19 Apr 17 @ 13:25:16 ~
  $ appver tint2
apt-show-versions
tint2:amd64/jessie-backports 0.14.0-1 uptodate

Horizon_Brave · 2017-04-19 16:37:24

Julie, I've found for myself at least, that normally I only need a handful of packages that are really and truly needed the most updated versions that haven't made it to deb stable yet. As nobody points out, you're probably safer permanently adding the bunsenlabs backports if you want, as those updated newer packages are a subset of usually specific BL software. For importing from debian backports, I would honestly just use it for key software that you absolutely need. Likewise, unless you know you need some specific functionality of the software that for some reason isn't 'turned on' in the older version, I wouldn't bother, and keep the slow,safe and steady mindset

Julie8484 · 2017-04-19 18:55:01

geekosupremo wrote:

The backported versions will only install when explicitly asked for. Thus you can safely have them in your apt sources if you want. But if you don't need them you can also safely leave them out. This is really a question of personal need/want.

But when I would use apt-get dist-upgrade they will appear right ?
Or they will appear when I use specific command in terminal ?

damo · 2017-04-19 19:59:31

Julie8484 wrote:

But when I would use apt-get dist-upgrade they will appear right ?
Or they will appear when I use specific command in terminal ?

You only get backports packages if (a) you add the backports repository to your sources, and (b) you have specifically installed a backports package.

If you just add the repos to your sources, which is what your original question asked I think, then nothing will happen unless you install a package from the backports repo - that is the one which could be upgraded, not the one from Stable.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-04-19 20:22:38

@Julie8484: do you understand what a "backport" is?

This link explains things:

https://backports.debian.org/

geekosupremo · 2017-04-19 21:15:49

The link from Head_on_a_Stick is the best resource for info on backports.

To address some of your specific questions ...

Julie8484 wrote:

Is this mean that is ok to chose one of the backports or both ?

It is OK (will not cause harm) to choose:

Both
One (if you only pick one, I'd say pick Bunsen)
None

Julie8484 wrote:

How safe are they ? Can this really mess up the whole system ?

How are you defining "safe"? Any piece of software is potentially dangerous. A backported application should not "mess up" your system since the user that created the backport creates it from a working version on their Debian Dev environment or at least built against a Debian profile.

They are "unsafe" in that they have not had the same level of testing that the apps in stable, but the software is designed to work and is unlikly to cause any sort of issue, which is why they are making it available as a backport.

Julie8484 wrote:

But when I would use apt-get dist-upgrade they will appear right ?

If you run

apt-get update

you will see the package manager update it's cache of software, including the backports.

apt-get dist-upgrade

as it is called here will not pull in backports. It will move your installed packages to the version that is consistant with the latest stable release of Debian. This is not the same as installing a backported package, see H_o_a_S's link.

Julie8484 wrote:

Or they will appear when I use specific command in terminal ?

The "appearace" of the backports ... is more complicated.

apt-get install {package-name} -t {release-name}-backports

will install the package(s) named in the command

apt-get upgrade -t {release-name}-backports

will look at your cache and fetch the backported packages that match and attempt to install them. Doing this can be less stable, because of the aforementioned less tested state of the package.

That help clear things up for you?

Julie8484 · 2017-04-21 14:25:26

geekosupremo wrote:

The link from Head_on_a_Stick is the best resource for info on backports.
To address some of your specific questions ...
Julie8484 wrote:
Is this mean that is ok to chose one of the backports or both ?
It is OK (will not cause harm) to choose:
Both
One (if you only pick one, I'd say pick Bunsen)
None
Julie8484 wrote:
How safe are they ? Can this really mess up the whole system ?
How are you defining "safe"? Any piece of software is potentially dangerous. A backported application should not "mess up" your system since the user that created the backport creates it from a working version on their Debian Dev environment or at least built against a Debian profile.
They are "unsafe" in that they have not had the same level of testing that the apps in stable, but the software is designed to work and is unlikly to cause any sort of issue, which is why they are making it available as a backport.
Julie8484 wrote:
But when I would use apt-get dist-upgrade they will appear right ?
If you run
apt-get update
you will see the package manager update it's cache of software, including the backports.
apt-get dist-upgrade
as it is called here will not pull in backports. It will move your installed packages to the version that is consistant with the latest stable release of Debian. This is not the same as installing a backported package, see H_o_a_S's link.
Julie8484 wrote:
Or they will appear when I use specific command in terminal ?
The "appearace" of the backports ... is more complicated.
apt-get install {package-name} -t {release-name}-backports
will install the package(s) named in the command
apt-get upgrade -t {release-name}-backports
will look at your cache and fetch the backported packages that match and attempt to install them. Doing this can be less stable, because of the aforementioned less tested state of the package.
That help clear things up for you?

For example : sudo apt-get -t bunsenlabs jessie-backports install tint2 ?

Last edited by Julie8484 (2017-04-21 14:25:48)

Horizon_Brave · 2017-04-21 15:33:59

That works. Or you can add some spice and vary it up with:

sudo aptitude install -t jessie-backports tint2

geekosupremo · 2017-04-21 16:21:58

Julie8484 wrote:

For example : sudo apt-get -t bunsenlabs jessie-backports install tint2 ?

Not quite. I tried that, and it doesn't recognize the second listed repo. So you'll have to pick one for your primary source of certain packages.

sudo apt -t jessie-backports install {package}

-- OR --

sudo apt -t bunsenlabs install {package}

Once the backported package is installed, it will always check the repo where it was installed from for any updates.

#1 2017-04-18 20:04:32

I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#2 2017-04-18 20:46:42

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#3 2017-04-19 06:21:38

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#4 2017-04-19 09:39:14

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#5 2017-04-19 14:07:04

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#6 2017-04-19 16:01:43

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#7 2017-04-19 16:27:23

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#8 2017-04-19 16:37:24

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#9 2017-04-19 18:55:01

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#10 2017-04-19 19:59:31

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#11 2017-04-19 20:22:38

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#12 2017-04-19 21:15:49

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#13 2017-04-21 14:25:26

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#14 2017-04-21 15:33:59

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

#15 2017-04-21 16:21:58

Re: I'm confused Debian Backports vs Bunsenlabs Backports

Board footer