15
Debian Stable With Newer Software — The Fast Forward Repository (watch.linuxrenaissance.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/debian@lemmy.ml
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 4 months ago (6 children)

What's wrong with backports and at a push snap/flatpak/appimg for apps? One of the main reasons I'm on Debian stable is I don't want the underlying plumbing of my system changing radically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    There is no problem with using the backports repositories or apps. The point is that sometimes, even in the backports archive, certain software are no longer maintained; this is the case with tilde, for example, which is still maintained for Testing and Sid… or not at all.

    Instead of installing apps, the Debian team or certain team members have set up official system for managing software that has been ported, either because it is too recent or due to licensing issues, via the Fast (Track|Forward) and extrepo repositories.

    This is why you’ll find a number of packages in these ‘official’ repositories that are not, or are no longer, in the stable repositories.

    This doesn’t radically change your system, as the packages in these repositories are packaged for the stable branch.

    (I hope I’ve understood correctly and, above all, summarised the point well)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Do these repositories follow similar rules to backports such that you have a guarantee you can safely upgrade to the next release with them installed?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    As far as I can tell, it would seem so; let me explain:

    • backports are Debian Team official

    • extrepo is managed by Debian Team officially, since 2019/11, to offers packages not included on Stable, Testing; Debian Team is responsible for officially integrating unofficial third-party repositories to the Stable branch; the process involves checking and verifying that the third-party repository is ‘clean’—as far as possible—or, rather, free from malicious code or malware; The manager of a third-party repository is responsible for its contents.

    • Debian Fast Track is an alternative repository to package for Stable branch, officially, since 2018/12. See:

    • Fast Forward Debian is an initiative of Daniel Baumann — who is a Debian developer, his DDPO, since 2025/12; this is considered by Debian Team officially as Debian derivative distribution — which means that the DFSG must be strictly adhered to!

    extrepo, Debian Fast (Track|Forward] are managed on Debian Infrastructure!

    So, unless I am mistaken, it is safe to say that yes, these third-party projects meet the same standards and quality requirements as the official project.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    I'm not as concerned about whether the packagers can be trusted - I also trust the packagers in sid, and like the fasttrack keyring is in Debian's main repo

    What I'm worried about is that it seems like these bypass the testing repo, and build directly from sid (and sometimes experimental)

    Generally, that has been discouraged, as the package version can get ahead of testing, and make a "frankendebian" where it isn't safe to upgrade from e.g. Debian 12 -> Debian 13, as your Debian 12 packages are newer than the Debian 13 packages

    Is there something with the package versions that keeps this "safe," or will there be fasttrack packages for Debian 14 prepared prior to Debian 14, such that you can upgrade between major versions without conflicting packages (take for example fast track's Kernel and Mesa being ahead of Testing)

    Edit: for another example, are these more like backports-sloppy with all the warnings about upgrading after using the repo?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago

    I understand your point about FrankenDebian. Personally, I don’t think that’s the issue in these contexts.

    I don’t have the answer to your question; you’ll need to check with the project leads.

    Edit: I’m not familiar with backports-sloppy

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent