Hi all.
antiX-14R is being worked on.
This is based on Debian Testing and is 'rolling'.
The first alpha should be available in a few hours.
(I'm only going to upload the 32 bit-full version for alpha testing).
The aim is to make sure that antiX-14 is released as a final before i head off to the UK again for summer work. While I'm in the UK (until end of September) I will not be able to work on antiX/MX, but I should be able to pop in to the forums to help out, check all is ok.
A question.
Do we need an updated/upgraded antiX-13 based on Wheezy? ie further bugfix and a few enhancements or is 13.2 stable enough to upgrade via debs/synaptic?
topic title: antiX plans
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
-
anticapitalista
Posts: 5,955
- Site Admin
- Joined: 11 Sep 2007
-
skidooPosts: 1,445
- Joined: 09 Feb 2012
#2
Yes, 13.2 has been quite stable. A delta-less"base" edition, sporting a newer kernel, might be a welcome release though.
-
rust collectorPosts: 765
- Joined: 27 Dec 2011
#3
Oddly enough, the only thing I am missing is a 64 bit"core" and /or"base"
-
DavePosts: 1,062
- Joined: 20 Jan 2010
#4
Just had a discussion with Rust Collector in IRC,
We think it would be nice if the ISO is simply dist-upgraded on a regular basis (like once a month or 2) that way new downloads do not need to fight with a dist-upgrade and you are not hit with doing an install and then upgrading the whole os after 6 months has passed. Also any minor bugfixes could be worked into the iso with another version number (like 13.1 to 13.2) I am not sure how much work this would be but ISTM keeping an remaster.sh session open and re-chrooting into the exploded ISO to apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade should work out ok... but I could be wrong.
We think it would be nice if the ISO is simply dist-upgraded on a regular basis (like once a month or 2) that way new downloads do not need to fight with a dist-upgrade and you are not hit with doing an install and then upgrading the whole os after 6 months has passed. Also any minor bugfixes could be worked into the iso with another version number (like 13.1 to 13.2) I am not sure how much work this would be but ISTM keeping an remaster.sh session open and re-chrooting into the exploded ISO to apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade should work out ok... but I could be wrong.
-
rust collectorPosts: 765
- Joined: 27 Dec 2011
#5
Yes, In my case, I use around 6 minutes to install 13.2 full on my desktop... then spend 20-30 minutes updating it, so that would be nice.
-
anticapitalista
Posts: 5,955
- Site Admin
- Joined: 11 Sep 2007
#6
Remember 13.2 is wheezy and 14R is testing. So if you want Testing you should install antiX-14 or regularly dis-upgrade antiX-13,2
-
rust collectorPosts: 765
- Joined: 27 Dec 2011
#7
Yes, it is just an example. If i just found it now, and wanted to try it, that is what would have happened.
It is just a suggestion, that if an iso is available for some time, it might be a good idea to offer an up to date iso for download, every few months, maybe.
It is not a big deal, and I have no idea how much work/time you would spend on that.
It is just a suggestion, that if an iso is available for some time, it might be a good idea to offer an up to date iso for download, every few months, maybe.
It is not a big deal, and I have no idea how much work/time you would spend on that.
-
SamKPosts: 1,028
- Joined: 21 Aug 2011
#8
Because Debian do not add features to packages in their Stable repo during the lifetime of the release, it enables the antiX-Stable release to remain largely unchanged during the same period. However, periodic minor point releases of antiX-Stable could incorporate the Debian security releases, antiX bug fixes, and antiX packages added to the antiX-Stable repo since the last Stable ISO was released.
When antiX-14R becomes available, it will become the preferred method of creating an installation based on the Unstable (Testing) repo. This will avoid the ever growing list of upgrades required when 13.2-Testing is used. Perhaps it might be more advantageous to consider the frequency that the 14R ISO is updated/upgraded in the way you suggest.
When both 13.2 and 14R are available, another opportunity arises. The option to create an installation based on Testing via 13.2 becomes more-or-less redundant. It might be worth thinking about removing it in the bugfix release. This will result in antiX-Full having independant ISOs for Stable and Unstable.
Dave wrote:Just had a discussion with Rust Collector in IRC,
We think it would be nice if the ISO is simply dist-upgraded on a regular basis (like once a month or 2) that way new downloads do not need to fight with a dist-upgrade and you are not hit with doing an install and then upgrading the whole os after 6 months has passed.
Doing this to the antiX-Stable installation ISO will effectively add upgrades from Debian Unstable (Testing) into Debian Stable (Wheezy). The resulting ISO will only be able to create an installation based on Debian Testing.rust collector wrote:Yes, In my case, I use around 6 minutes to install 13.2 full on my desktop... then spend 20-30 minutes updating it, so that would be nice.
Because Debian do not add features to packages in their Stable repo during the lifetime of the release, it enables the antiX-Stable release to remain largely unchanged during the same period. However, periodic minor point releases of antiX-Stable could incorporate the Debian security releases, antiX bug fixes, and antiX packages added to the antiX-Stable repo since the last Stable ISO was released.
When antiX-14R becomes available, it will become the preferred method of creating an installation based on the Unstable (Testing) repo. This will avoid the ever growing list of upgrades required when 13.2-Testing is used. Perhaps it might be more advantageous to consider the frequency that the 14R ISO is updated/upgraded in the way you suggest.
When both 13.2 and 14R are available, another opportunity arises. The option to create an installation based on Testing via 13.2 becomes more-or-less redundant. It might be worth thinking about removing it in the bugfix release. This will result in antiX-Full having independant ISOs for Stable and Unstable.
-
SamKPosts: 1,028
- Joined: 21 Aug 2011
#9
I have a running list of some 15 to 20(ish) items I have been tracking for the next upgrade to Stable. I will send it privately to avoid cluttering the thread.
I favour a new Stable ISO release.anticapitalista wrote:A question.
Do we need an updated/upgraded antiX-13 based on Wheezy? ie further bugfix and a few enhancements or is 13.2 stable enough to upgrade via debs/synaptic?
I have a running list of some 15 to 20(ish) items I have been tracking for the next upgrade to Stable. I will send it privately to avoid cluttering the thread.