Leandro Dutra wrote: > > > > This feature would, I fear, strain the dpkg system even more. I'm > > > starting to see occasional failures under dselect/apt/dpkg that > > > fortunately, for now, are transient (i.e. rerun dselect/apt and the > > > failure doesn't reoccur). It suggests to me that we are pushing our > > > package management software beyond its capability. > > > > I have put off continuning client changeover from slackware to > > debian due to these same concerns. Not to mention the condition of > > the current slink. > > I do not know exactly which failures are these... but I > notice most of the problems with packages in the list are > because people aren't using the stable (hamm) version. > > Sure you can use unstable (potato) or frozen (slink). But > they are not intended for general use, so in production or > end-use environments you shouldn't be using slink anyway. If > you use the distributions as they are intended, the stable > will be one of the best (more reliable, robust) Linux systems > available! > > I would suggest that, as apt is still in development, these > failures in non-stable environments should be expected. But > based on the history of Debian, they will surely have been fixed > when slink replaces hamm as the stable distribution. > > Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra > Amdocs Brasil Ltda >
I agree that people using slink should expect problems when updating their system with it. I've seen many of those problems (the __register__frame_info problem recently), but some of the problems aren't related to the packages. I occasionally see a "general protection failure" (or something similar) message that starts with a string of zeros. As long as they are transient, they are not serious (but indicate a weakness in dpkg) and are not easily trackable. Unfortunately, I haven't seen this recently so I can't be more specific. -- Ed C.