Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Debian Software

New debian-mentors Public .deb Repository Available 33

JohnKFisher writes "For anyone who has ever put together a .deb package, but didn't want to bother with the hassle of setting up their own repository, or trying to get your package added to the official one, the Public Package Repository is up and running. I wonder if this means someone can finally add a version of KDE not dating from late in the Carter administration."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New debian-mentors Public .deb Repository Available

Comments Filter:
  • KDE is current (Score:4, Informative)

    by metalhed77 ( 250273 ) <andrewvc@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Monday May 19, 2003 @04:59PM (#5994082) Homepage
    If you use unstable KDE 3.1.1 is there by default. If you use stable, has a debian server up for 3.1.1 that you can use.
    • Re:KDE is current (Score:4, Informative)

      by Phexro ( 9814 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @05:02PM (#5994100)
      Actually, the Debian KDE packages are kept quite up-to-date. I just upgraded to 3.1.2 last night. While it's not officially in woody, I've had no problems.

      deb woody main

      Add the above line to /etc/apt/sources.list and be happy.
      • Agreed, the author should keep up. I'm no fan of the Debian KDE team and have done my share of complaining when they held up 3.0 for months in the name of the gcc transition, but 3.1.2 was on its way to unstable before the KDE press release was even posted on Slashdot. I hope the author was talking about testing or stable, in which case I would urge him to re-evaluate his choice of stability over currency.

        In addition, regularly updated CVS debs have been available since at least November thanks to Orth's
        • > when they held up 3.0

          Make that 3.1...
        • Consider me corrected, and thanks for the info. When I set up Testing (not long ago at all), it was not nearly up-to-date. I found an unofficial source for newer KDE, and just assumed that the mains were still lagging badly. Well, you know what they say... (and, hey! first accepted submission! go me!)
          • Though, on further look, that does require me to be on unstable, and I don't know why testing has to be so incredibly far behind (2.2!)
            • Re:KDE is current (Score:5, Informative)

              by dzym ( 544085 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @12:05AM (#5996488) Homepage Journal
              Testing is far behind because of the way Debian is set up.

              Stable has been tested up and down and left and right, release-critical bugs must be totally eliminated, etc. The very nature of the requirements mean that stable release are relatively far and few inbetween. Once a stable release has been created, the packages that release contain are not updated except when patching bugs and security fixes. However, a stable release does provide a stable point for 3rd party packagers to create packages for.

              Unstable, of course, is the up-to-the-moment bleeding-edge packages, as official packagers turn them in so to speak. This is usually very current, except for special circumstances like the cpp 2.9x to cpp 3.x transition, for which you really should be blaming the gcc people, not Debian. But since the transition is now pretty much over, Unstable is back on track with the fast updates.

              Testing, however, is the middle ground. Nobody builds packages for testing, because testing is where packages from Unstable filter down to, unless blocked by breakage that would otherwise have been solved in Unstable, but for which packages have not yet filtered down into Testing. This includes security fixes: they go into either stable, or unstable ... not testing. Most people should use either Stable or Unstable. Testing is not a good place to be.

              • Testing is far behind because of the way Debian is set up. Correct. All the Debian developers are talent-free filthy stinking cocksucking GNU-hippies. There is precious little time between apt-getting fucked in the ass by your Debian-using buddies to actually maintain and test packages. Thankyou
  • VERY useful (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Taral ( 16888 ) *
    This is a nice way of hosting packages when someone doesn't have the space to put up their own apt-repository. If it's searchable, that's a bonus.

    It remains to be seen exactly what kinds of packages will end up here. At least it still requires a DD sponsor, so hopefully poorly-packaged/broken packages will not end up here...
    • Where on the site did it say that a packager requires a sponsor? From the "About" page, it seems like they're warning you that the packages might be poorly-packaged/broken.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    A few days ago, David Wright posted a message to the Debian-user list, questioning the wisdom of Debian's decision to target 11 architectures. He pointed out (with supporting references) that this decision has contributed to a long delay in releasing Woody; of course, other people have said this before.

    The main result was that a small number of Debian insiders posted abusive comments in response to David's perfectly reasonable message. (The thread, in case you missed it, has the subject "This post is not o
    • by Anonymous Coward

      With hindsight, it's clear that trying to support too many architectures was a mistake.

      That's no mistake, when you understand Debian's primary motivation: manifest destiny. Why eleven architectures? So that Debian can run on anything. Why does Debian have a text based installer? Because it can install on anything.

      Suppose someone owns a toaster that they can't install Debian on. The problem becomes that of the Debian project to update their systems to support that machine. If Debian only had one archit

      • I agree whole heartedly. It makrs no sense for Debian to limit what arhitectures it supports. The number of hardware dependant packages should be quite small while the number of developers should be fairy large. Thus the cost for debian to add another achitecture should have a much smaller impact than it would on a commercial distro.

        Also in the area of text based insatallers. I see no resaon the text based installer cannot be as easy to use as a graphical one. The standard install for any OS is, prep drive
  • Not Gentoo (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RiverTonic ( 668897 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @05:51PM (#5994476) Homepage
    That's great news. Now it seems that I don't have to move to Gentoo to get some very recent packages.

    FYI: This [] is also a good please to find your deb-packages.
  • What we really need is a decent tested 'backports of new things to Woody' archive, for people who need a new feature, but also need mission critical stability.
  • i run unstable and i don't really understand why anybody would want anymore bleeding-edge than that (unless they're going through "frequent-reboot" withdrawls after leaving windows...). i suppose you could add a bunch of cvs lines to sources.list and roll the dice, but gnome2.2, gcc 3.3, and galeon 1.3.4 are plenty up to date for me.

"I prefer the blunted cudgels of the followers of the Serpent God." -- Sean Doran the Younger