Debian Bug report logs - #645019
stable version should be stable

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@koumbit.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: stable version should be stable

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:33:57 -0400

Package: nginx
Severity: wishlist

Right now, Debian users have the choice of installing the legacy
version of Nginx (0.7.67) from stable or running the backport
(1.1.4). Both options are not very satisfactory:

 1. the legacy version is unsupported
 2. the legacy version is not the latest legacy (0.8.55)
 3. the backport is the development version 
 4. the backport is not up to date (1.1.4 < 1.1.5)

I am not sure I understand clearly the numbering scheme of Nginx
releases, but I conclude the above from the following page:

http://nginx.org/en/download.html

I believe that stable should have 1.0.8 in backports, not 1.1.x. From
my perspective, 1.1.x releases should be uploaded to experimental, not
unstable.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.0.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_CA.utf8, LC_CTYPE=fr_CA.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to fr_CA.UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Message #10 received at 645019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@koumbit.org>

To: 645019@bugs.debian.org

Subject: a more constructive approach

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:51:25 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Another way to put this: in the future, i feel that development versions
shouldn't be uploaded to unstable, but to experimental. So when 1.2
comes out, it should be uploaded to unstable, but 1.3 should be kept in
experimental.

I am not sure if there's anything we can do right now as it would be
impossible (?) to downgrade from 1.1 in testing...

A.

-- 
The problem is not a lack of highly educated workers, the problem is a
lack of highly educated workers willing to work for the minimum wage or
lower in the U.S. Costs are driving outsourcing, not the quality of
American schools.       - Scott Kirwin, IT Professionals Association

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 645019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hans van Kranenburg <hans.van.kranenburg@mendix.com>

To: 645019@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: a more constructive approach

Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:23:01 +0100

Today we got bit by a bug in 1.1.4 that is fixed in 1.1.5, but it was on 
a system where I'd rather run 1.0.9 stable. :-|

Stable versions later than 1.0.5 are just never 'officially' packaged in 
Debian right now. I would also prefer having the stable releases of 
nginx available in squeeze-backports, instead of the development 
versions. This means Debian testing also has to stick to those stable 
releases. Debian testing is meant to be a place to prepare a new Debian 
release, and I think it's a bad idea (tm) to ship Wheezy with a 
development release of Nginx anyway.

I agree with the proposal to use the experimental distribution for 
development releases of nginx. That would also be the any option left 
anyway.

Nginx stable 1.0.x afaik gets all bugfixes that are done in 1.1.x.

I think downgrading the version in Debian testing, although technically 
possible (by increasing the package version epoch number, e.g. 
1:1.0.9-1) is not the prefered way to go, because it's a disruptive 
change, that most of the users (who are possibly using features that are 
introduced in 1.1.x) won't normally expect to happen.

Another suggestion would be to fix this issue as soon as nginx 1.2.x is 
available, unless this will happen after freezing Wheezy.

This also would mean that until that happens, there's no place in Debian 
to distribute the current stable packages, like 1.0.9.

In the meantime, I think I'll start rolling my own 1.0.x packages for 
squeeze (and lenny). The nginx package is not very difficult to work on.

I'm more than willing to help with anything related, if needed.

-- 
Hans van Kranenburg - System / Network Engineer
+31 (0)10 2760434 | hans.van.kranenburg@mendix.com | www.mendix.com

Message #22 received at 645019-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michaellustfield@ubuntu.com>

To: 645019-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Agreed

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:05:18 -0600

No, there's nothing to really do in the realm of moving to 1.0.x unless you
want more headache than it's worth. I think the general reason 1.1.x was
included was because Nginx versioning runs much much faster than Debian. When
testing is frozen with the dev version of nginx, it's likely than stable will
be tagged with the current stable nginx.

If this were done prior, then the current nginx legacy (which is supported)
would be in debian stable instead of old-legacy (which is not supported). In
general, the nginx development branch proves to be more stable than its stable
branch.

Although I didn't make the decision to put 1.1.x into unstable, I definitely
support who did decide to do so.

With the 1.x.x branches seeing many fewer changes, I expect that this will be a
moot point in the future anyway.

-- 
Michael Lustfield
Ubuntu Member, Nginx Developer

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.