getting newer versions of programs/packages in the repository
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
Many of the packages in the Belenos repository are outdated and I've had to install programs without the package manager. For the most part this is less convenient but not a huge problem. However, I am a beginner and the messiness of doing everything manually is starting to get a little complicated for me.
Both Frescobaldi and Lilypond 2.16.2 are in the repository but, I would like to use Lilypond 2.18.2 instead. I installed the latest version from the Lilypond website, but Frescobaldi only recognizes version 2.16.2, which the package manager requires as a dependency for Frescobaldi. Is there a way to force the repository's version of Frescobaldi to use the current version of Lilypond, or will I need to build Frescobaldi myself.
Being a beginner, I suspect that there is a smarter way of upgrading/updating programs. I actually thought that the point of the package manager was to do this automatically, until I noticed how many packages are older versions. Am I just using it incorrectly?
Thanks!
You could install Guix the package manager, not the distribution, Frescobaldi is part of the repositories and you will get more up-to-date packages :)
Is it true that if the version number starts with 0 that it's then in beta?
If you're referring to Lilypond, stable versions have an even second number and devel versions have and odd second number. The current stable version is 2.18 and the current devel version is 2.19.
I'm referring to Guix
Guix uses functional programming (Guile) and a mathematical approach to gave reproducible builds no every package is both secure and corruption free.
So don't worry Guix packages are completely stable
Thanks. I made it to step 8. When I try to run
$ guix package -i glibc-locales
I get
guile: warning: failed to install locale
warning: failed to install locale: Invalid argument
guix package: error: build failed: the group `guixbuild' specified in `build-users-group' does not exist
I get the same error if I skip step 8 and run
# guix package -i hello
I did not notice any errors during steps 1-7, and I'm not seeing anything when I search for this one. Any ideas?
EDIT: I should have specified that I am following the instructions for binary installation.
https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Binary-Installation.html#Binary-Installation
... Nope. My bad. I went back and did that, after which I was able to run
$ guix package -i hello
(side-note, how does one do code blocks in this forum?)
I now run
$ guix package -A lilypond
and see Lilypond 2.19.58, which is the current unstable version. The current stable version is 2.18.2. Lilypond alternates between stable and unstable releases, with unstable releases being given odd second version numbers (2.17*, 2.19*). Guix probably has no way of knowing this and doesn't recognize that 2.19.58 is not a stable release. Can Guix be used to access the "older" 2.18.2? Even if not, Guix seems awesome in general and solves some other unrelated problems for me.
You can ask in IRC #guix for someone to upload the stable version. I have no idea how to package so I can't do it :/
Guix is so good you could have both development and stable without interfering one with the other :)
To do code blocks you need to use HTML syntax <code> </code>
Guix allows rollbacks and so on but that does not mean the programs installed through Guix are stable! They is not in the sense that they are recent versions, hence less tested.
Fair enough. I should had chosen my wording better.
What I meant is installation using Guix is completely safe and all the packages there would be OK.
Of course that doesn't mean that the bugs that the software has won't be there for Guix. Neither that the Guix packages will have more bugs.
Guix packages are as stable as they can be with any other way of installation or a little better, because of the reproducible builds.
Reproducible builds have nothing to do with stability and everything to do with verifiability and security: being certain that the binary really corresponds to the source code (that the user can study), that it was not altered during the build process. See https://reproducible-builds.org
I am a translator!
Frescobaldi! That's without any doubt the best sounding name I ever heard so far. Amazing.. Frescobaldi, can you savor the beauty of the sound in Frescobaldi?
God dammit, I will need to change my name now, and all of my user names to Frescobaldi. Ahh, Frescobaldi.. Amazing. Absolutely amazing.
Frescobaldi
This issue keeps coming up.
Why? What is the barrier to keeping already approved software packages updated in the repositories?
Why can't the Trisquel project just automatically pull in the software package from the Ubuntu or Debian repositories as soon as those are updated?
Is there some self-imposed requirement for a human to personally vet each new update to ensure the software remains libre? If so, that's excessive and the costs to reliability and security outweigh the risk of some unfree code sneaking in.
Use Parabola GNU/Linux if that is what you want. But first read https://wiki.parabola.nu/Rolling_vs._LTS to have an answer to your question, about the drawbacks of rolling releases.
Thanks, that was a pretty good summary.
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti