Why are Update Packs based on Testing rather than Sid?
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:50 pm
I'm starting to wonder what the reasoning was behind this decision. Debian Testing is notorious for its time-based rules and policies preventing frequently updated applications (in Sid) from commonly carrying over, even if the new versions are more stable. Even though these policies are meant to prevent unstable software from making it into Testing, it seems to break a lot anyway...and it takes forever before it gets fixed.
From what I understand, LMDE's Update Packs fix this problem by emphasizing manual testing of snapshots over automated time-based rules. However, since this manual testing is being done, it would make more sense to me if the snapshots were being taken from Sid rather than Testing: Not only is the software more recent, but despite frequent breakages, the frequent updates and fixes mean it usually doesn't take long to wait for a snapshot that actually works either. There might never be a time when everything works simultaneously in Sid, but Mint uses its own repositories, so it really only matters if the core components work in a Sid snapshot: User applications that happen to be broken for a few days in Sid could still be patched up with newer versions before releasing the Update Pack, right?
I'm assuming that the biggest obstacle is that the Mint/LMDE team doesn't actually have time to test all of the non-core packages, and due to the infrequency of updates, it's better to rely on Debian Testing's automated system to do some of that legwork. However, the technical success of the Sidux/aptosid distro indicates that Sid breakages can be largely avoided by testing and releasing core packages on a frequent basis, while letting user applications stay close to the bleeding edge. That's not to say releases should necessarily be as fast as that distro, because stability may be more of a focus, but I mean to say that the more dynamic nature of Sid should make it easier and less stressful to release updates more frequently and more "at will" (and the packages would be more current as well).
From my standpoint, the biggest shortcoming of the aptosid distro - the dealbreaker - is its aversion to anything having to do with Gnome, whereas Mint/LMDE's greatest strength is probably the ease with which users can pick Cinnamon or MATE. I'd love to have a distribution that leveraged the strengths of both, and I suspect that's what drove many people to LMDE in the first place over other related distributions: Debian Stable gets the security updates, but it's otherwise too outdated for most desktop users. Testing is both old and commonly broken, and fixes take forever. Sid is bleeding edge but breaks frequently. aptosid fixes that, but it's more imperative and controlling about desktop environment. (Technical difficulties with Gnome breaking more often than KDE and XFCE are sometimes cited, but the same issues shouldn't apply to a stable Gnome 2 clone like MATE.) Mint is a polished distro that provides the best choices of desktop environment, but its Ubuntu-like (Ubuntu-based) six month release cycle is too slow for many. I think LMDE's original appeal came from the idea of a reliable but frequently updated distribution based on Debian, which promotes a Gnome2-like interface. Instead, it's starting to look more like Debian Stable Mint Edition, except without the security updates, and so I wonder if it's struggling to find its purpose, especially compared to the standard Mint distribution.
All that said, I'm only passingly familiar with how all of this works. Am I missing something important here, or could a case be made for basing the LMDE Update Packs on Sid instead of Testing?
From what I understand, LMDE's Update Packs fix this problem by emphasizing manual testing of snapshots over automated time-based rules. However, since this manual testing is being done, it would make more sense to me if the snapshots were being taken from Sid rather than Testing: Not only is the software more recent, but despite frequent breakages, the frequent updates and fixes mean it usually doesn't take long to wait for a snapshot that actually works either. There might never be a time when everything works simultaneously in Sid, but Mint uses its own repositories, so it really only matters if the core components work in a Sid snapshot: User applications that happen to be broken for a few days in Sid could still be patched up with newer versions before releasing the Update Pack, right?
I'm assuming that the biggest obstacle is that the Mint/LMDE team doesn't actually have time to test all of the non-core packages, and due to the infrequency of updates, it's better to rely on Debian Testing's automated system to do some of that legwork. However, the technical success of the Sidux/aptosid distro indicates that Sid breakages can be largely avoided by testing and releasing core packages on a frequent basis, while letting user applications stay close to the bleeding edge. That's not to say releases should necessarily be as fast as that distro, because stability may be more of a focus, but I mean to say that the more dynamic nature of Sid should make it easier and less stressful to release updates more frequently and more "at will" (and the packages would be more current as well).
From my standpoint, the biggest shortcoming of the aptosid distro - the dealbreaker - is its aversion to anything having to do with Gnome, whereas Mint/LMDE's greatest strength is probably the ease with which users can pick Cinnamon or MATE. I'd love to have a distribution that leveraged the strengths of both, and I suspect that's what drove many people to LMDE in the first place over other related distributions: Debian Stable gets the security updates, but it's otherwise too outdated for most desktop users. Testing is both old and commonly broken, and fixes take forever. Sid is bleeding edge but breaks frequently. aptosid fixes that, but it's more imperative and controlling about desktop environment. (Technical difficulties with Gnome breaking more often than KDE and XFCE are sometimes cited, but the same issues shouldn't apply to a stable Gnome 2 clone like MATE.) Mint is a polished distro that provides the best choices of desktop environment, but its Ubuntu-like (Ubuntu-based) six month release cycle is too slow for many. I think LMDE's original appeal came from the idea of a reliable but frequently updated distribution based on Debian, which promotes a Gnome2-like interface. Instead, it's starting to look more like Debian Stable Mint Edition, except without the security updates, and so I wonder if it's struggling to find its purpose, especially compared to the standard Mint distribution.
All that said, I'm only passingly familiar with how all of this works. Am I missing something important here, or could a case be made for basing the LMDE Update Packs on Sid instead of Testing?