>> I think that the ubuntu situation is orthogonal to the debian one. >> Since ubuntu takes its packages from unstable, whether or not we >> remove the package from stable is irrelevant. > > The bugs for the kismet package in Ubuntu are irrelevant IFF the package in > Wheezy doesn't have these SIGSEGV bugs. ;-) [The package versions are > essentially identical, and Ubuntu starts with the packages in Debian.]
I was referring to the status of being shipped/removed with the current distributions. Of course I expect the same segfaults in both of them. >> Removing it from unstable is a different story. > > Concerning Unstable I'm only suggesting updating the version of Kismet, which > is what you've already been working on. ;-) [Thanks for this, BTW.] You're very welcome. I'm also doing a favour to me here :) >> Branches can be even two directories in my disk :) > > Well... /usually/ the versions of a package in Unstable, Testing, and Stable > are all slightly different. snapshot.debian.org keeps a copy of all of these > versions, so you effectively "automatically" get these "branches" in a way. > For instance for kismet: > > http://snapshot.debian.org/package/kismet/ That's something I didn't know, thanks! > Popcon shows 1472 installs of the current package, and 4 kismet installs of a > newer version that is "not in sid" (I'm one of the latter). > >> Is there any way to get statistics for >> usage (popcon) depending on the release? > > Sort of -- this deliniation is not reported on popcon.debian.org, but I > believe these are statistics that do exist within Debian internally. This > recently came up in tech-ctte bug #688772: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2012/09/msg00077.html > https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2012/09/msg00090.html OK, it's not that important. I was just curious to know how many people are actually using the old version. >> Would a response like "please use the recent version in testing " be >> acceptable? > > IMHO, no. To install the package in Testing on a Stable box requires > switching Debian trees temporarily and usually ends up requiring upgrading > other packages due to version dependencies, and thus results in the box being > in a "mixed tree" state; then the admin switches trees back to Stable, whereby > the box doesn't get security updates for the packages that came from Testing. > [I occasionally do this, and so far I've gotten away with it, but it wouldn't > be something I'd advise someone else to do.] > > A better plan for this, IMHO, would be to use backports.debian.org for having > an upgraded package for Stable available, which could thus stick with the > packages in Stable as much as possible, and thus continue to get security > updates. Sure, backport is fine. Or provide they can always take the source from testing and build it themselves. I usually do this in Ubuntu: I have the deb-src of the next release in order to package the backports I need myself. Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
