Life, The Universe & Debian (was Re: Unstable vs. Stable)
On 24 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ed writes: > > ...once I had a working system of X/lesstif/latex/gcc and a lot of > > utils I couldn't see the point in upgrading. > > That's fine if you never intend to add any new packages. If you do, > eventually you will be forced to upgrade do to changes in libc, > the kernel, perl, etc. It is my understanding from what I've read > on this list that it is pretty much impossible to upgrade an "old" > installation like mine without re-installing. certainly not! upgrading from an old installation to the latest stable or unstable isn't as easy as it could & should be but it is fairly straightforward. The worst you're likely to run into are dependancy problems. Brute-force repetition of "Install" followed by "Config" in dselect several times (until there are no errors reported) will get you through this. You'll get bored after the 3rd or 5th iteration of this, so then you'll want to know how to use dpkg. Just look on the dselect screen, make a note of which packages are failing because they depend on some other package which hasn't been installed yet, and install the dependancies by hand with dpkg. e.g. if several packages require the new libc and several others require the new perl, then exit to the shell prompt and (assuming you have a mirror or cd of debian mounted at /debian) type something like: cd /debian/unstable/binary-i386 (or cd /debian/stable/binary-i386) dpkg -i base/libc5_5.4.20-1.deb interpreters/perl_5.003.07-6.deb if these also fail because of dependancies (e.g. libc5 may need a newer ldso) then install them with dpkg too. Use 'ls' or 'find' to find out the exact filenames of the packages you want to install - most of them will be found in logically sensible directories (e.g. most libraries go in libs/, interpreters like perl go in interpreters/ etc) Once you've done that, run dselect and go through the automated Install again. If necessary, repeat the above until you get a clean (no errors) install. It's actually quite straight-forward and simple. All those error messages flashing by on the screen make it *look* far more serious a problem than it really is. The key thing to remember is "DON'T PANIC!" :-) (and always know where your towel is) Craig -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > eventually you will be forced to upgrade do to changes in libc, the kernel, > perl, etc. It is my understanding from what I've read on this list that it > is pretty much impossible to upgrade an "old" installation like mine > without re-installing. How "old"? I upgraded my 1.1.0 to 1.2.5 whitout any problems. After reading about the dselct / perl problems on this list I disided to: 1 first download all base pakages and install them with dpkg, rerunning dpkg some times untill all pakages was installed. 2 then upgraded all the important pakages with dselect (all else on hold). repeted install and configur a numeber of times. 3 Same procedure for standar pakages and the rest. Think I manualy stoped cron somway down the road but I dont think thats neded anymore... Went ok. Some problems with MH but I don't think its becose the upgrade methode. X, gcc, latex etc is working! My sysload went high after step one and login stoped working, making me nervus. All went fine after 60-70min all by it selfe. Strange but my system was strange before (always been?). I got to lern more U**X system administration :) (debian makes You get along almost *too* good without it). I think the 'hard times of the stabel tree' is more myth the reality. It is some bugs in 1.2 but You can work around them if You read this list. Most time You can upgrade/install anything You want and dselect tells You what more it takes. Do what dselect tells You and it usualy works. AFAIK the important bugs/missing featurs are worked on. I look forward to the next stabel releas. Thanx to everyone for this miracle (Debian, Linux, GNU...) /Lars -- / / _/_ _/_ Lars Hallberg IT-konsult Micro++ /\_/\ / / www.micropp.se/lahwww.micropp.se / Micro++OOP C++ WWW-Design Utbildning LINUX FreeWare -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
Ed Down <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hmmm, I wasn't aware of this. Couldn't debian fit the last release in > total on the ftp site in a 'frozen' state for ftp users? I for one was > happy with the 1.2 release 'out of the box' and would probably not have > bothered upgrading until the next release if it had been possible extra > packages from the original release. But maybe I'm in a minority of one > here... Most of the packages in 1.2.x are the same as versions as 1.2.0. You can still add packages from 1.2.x without any problems. At worst, you might have to upgrade to more of the fixes in 1.2.x. Guy -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
On 24 Feb 1997, Guy Maor wrote: > Ed Down <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > But, on the ftp site, doesn't rex contain what was, in effect, the > > original 1.2.0 release in total? > > No, not in total, just a subset. Source and binaries in 1.2.0 that > have been replaced by files in rex-updates are removed. Otherwise it > would be impossible to fit Debian 1.2 on one CD. > > You can still upgrade to the latest by pointing dselect at stable. > Hmmm, I wasn't aware of this. Couldn't debian fit the last release in total on the ftp site in a 'frozen' state for ftp users? I for one was happy with the 1.2 release 'out of the box' and would probably not have bothered upgrading until the next release if it had been possible extra packages from the original release. But maybe I'm in a minority of one here... Ed -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [concerned that he can't upgrade without completely re-installing his system] > I installed 1.1. You will have to upgrade dpkg by hand to the version in the release you are installing: dpkg -i dpkg-x.x.x.x.deb dpkg --clear-avail _Then_ update the list of available packages. There may be a manual edit of your X configuration required. People who understand X a lot better than I are available to help out on this list. There may be other small hassles, but an upgrade should certainly be possible. Thanks Bruce -- Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Ed Down wrote: > On 24 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Ed writes: > > > ...once I had a working system of X/lesstif/latex/gcc and a lot of utils > > > I couldn't see the point in upgrading. > > > > That's fine if you never intend to add any new packages. If you do, > > eventually you will be forced to upgrade do to changes in libc, the kernel, > > perl, etc. It is my understanding from what I've read on this list that it > > is pretty much impossible to upgrade an "old" installation like mine > > without re-installing. Is depent how old... Debian is young and the very first release was little buggy. But you can surely upgrade with a little handwork. Most of the time, the handwork resume to use dpkg instead of dselect to upgrade some critical package (such as dpkg itself). See the 1.2 FAQ about this. (http://ece.wpi.edu/~rulnick/GlinuX/debian-1.2-faq.html) 1.3 announce to be very stable and easy to upgrade (hep! we learn from experience :) and we looking forward to keep this for further release. > > -- > > As far as I can deduce from the directory structure at Debian, you CAN get > new packages from the original release - minus all the updates - by taking > them from the 'rex' directory. As I understand it 'rex' still contains all > the packages (that were available then) as they were at the release of > 1.2.0. So if you installed 1.2.0 you can still add new packages from there > without upgrade incompatibilities. > > Ed (Who welcomes being shown to be wrong on this subject...) > That's right but sometimes, bug fixes are important and can broke old package. Some thing make exception (such as jumping from 1.2 kernel to 2.0, or major version change in libc) and you must be more careful. Hope this help. - - Not knowing we're you going always lead you to a Baggus end. the lost Baggus Mage - - Fabien Ninoles aka le Veneur aka le Corbeau E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WebPage: http://www-edu.gel.usherb.ca/ninf01 E-mail me with "get pgp key" in the subject to get my public key PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D 99 4F 80 2D 2D 1F 85 C1 70 - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMxHpFFX6fc7jcjhFAQFuqwP/esaOltmQYoesVQhpt6qPhESUp89ykf+l 2EeQw7Jj4kkuc+ElMfHWd4TvTPxNI39BbFRyDF+rxlIrmViJ7Hyhbhzz//egqEox 0SuS9yd+xTftfkBouUtfdk6gVyrZLemjwGZJZu7oWxmVX8pCmms6QBbvhZL7SVgm L2U0lWoU+iE= =0Bi9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
Ed writes: > As I understand it 'rex' still contains all the packages (that were > available then) as they were at the release of 1.2.0. By "new packages" I meant ones which were not available in old releases. > So if you installed 1.2.0 you can still add new packages from there > without upgrade incompatibilities. I installed 1.1. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
Ed Down <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 24 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It is my understanding from what I've read on this list that it > > is pretty much impossible to upgrade an "old" installation like mine > > without re-installing. That's an extremely harsh criticism. Upgrading to the unstable distribution is inherently risky, but upgrading between stable versions should be fairly easy. > As far as I can deduce from the directory structure at Debian, you CAN get > new packages from the original release - minus all the updates - by taking > them from the 'rex' directory. Unfortunately limited space on CDs required that obsolete packages be erased from rex. rex contains a subset of the packages in 1.2.0. (ie - no packages are added). > So if you installed 1.2.0 you can still add new packages from there > without upgrade incompatibilities. rex-fixed, aka, stable is nothing more than a tree of symlinks to everything in rex plus everything in rex-updates. The READMEs in stable and rex-updates should make this eminently clean. Guy -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
On 24 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ed writes: > > ...once I had a working system of X/lesstif/latex/gcc and a lot of utils > > I couldn't see the point in upgrading. > > That's fine if you never intend to add any new packages. If you do, > eventually you will be forced to upgrade do to changes in libc, the kernel, > perl, etc. It is my understanding from what I've read on this list that it > is pretty much impossible to upgrade an "old" installation like mine > without re-installing. > -- As far as I can deduce from the directory structure at Debian, you CAN get new packages from the original release - minus all the updates - by taking them from the 'rex' directory. As I understand it 'rex' still contains all the packages (that were available then) as they were at the release of 1.2.0. So if you installed 1.2.0 you can still add new packages from there without upgrade incompatibilities. Ed (Who welcomes being shown to be wrong on this subject...) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
Ed writes: > ...once I had a working system of X/lesstif/latex/gcc and a lot of utils > I couldn't see the point in upgrading. That's fine if you never intend to add any new packages. If you do, eventually you will be forced to upgrade do to changes in libc, the kernel, perl, etc. It is my understanding from what I've read on this list that it is pretty much impossible to upgrade an "old" installation like mine without re-installing. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
On 21 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Craig writes: > > If you dont have a good net connection, I'd recommend getting a freshly > > burned CD with unstable on it once a month and upgrading from that. > > In other words, if you don't have plenty of money, don't use Debian. Definitely not! I spent ages using my system with no upgrading at all having installed from rex. I understand the need to upgrade for bugs/new packages, but once I had a working system of X/lesstif/latex/gcc and a lot of utils I couldn't see the point in upgrading. As a 'normal user' I didn't find any of the bugs/limitations in the system I had installed needed repairing. If it works - don't fix it Ed -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
On 21 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Craig writes: > > If you dont have a good net connection, I'd recommend getting a freshly > > burned CD with unstable on it once a month and upgrading from that. > > In other words, if you don't have plenty of money, don't use Debian. > -- I got Debian disk for $2.99. Now I don't call that plenty of money. I think people should not be trying to update their systems unless they have to or something is really buggy. I have kernel 2.0.28 and the next time I upgrade will be with kernel 2.2.10 I hope. Everything is working great, I really do not need to upgrade, on the otherhand I use my computer for real work and not just hacking around. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
On 21 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Craig writes: > > If you dont have a good net connection, I'd recommend getting a > > freshly burned CD with unstable on it once a month and upgrading > > from that. > > In other words, if you don't have plenty of money, don't use Debian. not at all. 'i recommend' is not the same as 'i insist' or even 'you must' if you dont have a good net connection or enough money to get an unstable cd every month or so then just use the stable distribution. like i said, i think of stable as a poor man's debianit's OK but not as good as the real thing. my opinion is just my opinion. it works for me, and it works for some others. it may or may not work for you. take it or leave it. craig -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
On 21 Feb 1997, Rob Browning wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > In other words, if you don't have plenty of money, don't use Debian. > > FUD > > It just means that you can be as cutting edge as you feel comfortable > with/can afford. Many other systems don't even give you that option. > > Also, CheapBytes sells a Debian CD for $2.99. I doubt that that would > break anyone's bank. > Currently running Debian on a 486/25 16 megs RAM,540 meg hd b/w laptop, four years old and getting older. This is cutting edge technology? And yes, I run X, Xemacs, kernel recompiles, etc. Most people in reality can do fine with a 486DX2 with about a gig of HD space. Unless you play a lot of 3d games or do some serious multimedia development there is no need to run Linux on a high end computer. Of course, the extra speed is definetly nice and noticable :) (I have a pentium running Slack somewhere else... but hardly use it, since this trusty old laptop contains most of my data...) It would be nice if I had color, though Laptop prices are in the mid 1500's for older 100 mhz models. The missing CD-ROM is not a big deal if you can do an ftp installation. Then you can install the drivers for one of those pcmcia cd-roms Heck, my current setup only has a zip drive attached. As for desktop models, you can get a 133 or 166 dirt cheap. Will -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > In other words, if you don't have plenty of money, don't use Debian. FUD It just means that you can be as cutting edge as you feel comfortable with/can afford. Many other systems don't even give you that option. Also, CheapBytes sells a Debian CD for $2.99. I doubt that that would break anyone's bank. -- Rob -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
Craig writes: > If you dont have a good net connection, I'd recommend getting a freshly > burned CD with unstable on it once a month and upgrading from that. In other words, if you don't have plenty of money, don't use Debian. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
On Feb 20, Rick Macdonald wrote > I live off unstable all the time, and seem to have less problems > than the average bear! Be forewarned, after the release of Debian 1.3.x, we will be switching to glibc 2.x, aka Linux libc 6. When that happens, the unstable tree will definitely live up to it's name, at least for a while. David -- David EngelODS Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1001 E. Arapaho Road (972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Daniel Robbins wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John T. Larkin) writes: > > > > > This was bad; everything linked with the x libraries couldn't run > > > since they couldn't find the libraries. They had installed a bunch > > > of X packages, so one of the packages should have been responsable > > > for making sure that this line was added to /etc/ld.so.conf, > > > correct? > > > > Yes, this has been fixed in unstable. > > Could someone please explain to me the difference between the > unstable and stable directories? Since it seems like all the bug > fixes go in unstable, isn't the unstable stuff more stable than > stable? here's what i think the difference is: use stable if you don't have a good net connection or if you dont have the time or skills to cope with packaging problems. get it on cdrom and upgrade once every few months when a new cd is pressed. You'll still run into packaging problems but you'll only have to deal with them once ever 3 or 4 months. If you want to avoid the worst of the dependancy problems wait until a few weeks after the stable release before upgrading to it - until at least .3 or .5 use unstable if you have a decent net connection and the time & skill to fix minor packaging hassles. upgrade once every week or so. or whenever you feel like it. Often the upgrade will go smoothly with no problems because there's only a dozen or so packages changed. Other times you'll get a few minor problems which you might have to fix by hand with dpkg. Every now and then you'll run into a real bad bug or major incompatible change (e.g. bash 2.0 is stricter about POSIX conformance than 1.14, which breaks many shell scripts), but mostly you'll be better off than if you only upgrade at every new stable release. I find that the longer you leave it between upgrades, the MORE problems you are going to have. And when you do finally upgrade, you get hit with hundreds of problems at once, which is much worse than getting one or two problems per week if you upgrade regularly from unstable. In other words, I think that the stable release is sort of a "poor man's debian". If you dont have a good net connection, I'd recommend getting a freshly burned CD with unstable on it once a month and upgrading from that. If an updated package breaks, either re-install the earlier version from an old CD or fetch the latest direct from one of the debian ftp site. Craig -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
On 20 Feb 1997, Guy Maor wrote: > Daniel Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Since it seems like all the bug fixes go in unstable, isn't the > > unstable stuff more stable than stable? > > All the new bugs go into stable too. Sometimes they are very bad. I live off unstable all the time, and seem to have less problems than the average bear! YMMV. ...RickM... -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
On 20 Feb 1997, Guy Maor wrote: > Daniel Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Since it seems like all the bug fixes go in unstable, isn't the > > unstable stuff more stable than stable? > > All the new bugs go into stable too. Sometimes they are very bad. > > > Guy I wish there was a directory tree called "verystable"! -=- Daniel Robbins School of Medicine Computer Services University of New Mexico [email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
Daniel Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Since it seems like all the bug fixes go in unstable, isn't the > unstable stuff more stable than stable? All the new bugs go into stable too. Sometimes they are very bad. Guy -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unstable vs. Stable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Daniel Robbins wrote: > On 19 Feb 1997, Rob Browning wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John T. Larkin) writes: > > > > > This was bad; everything linked with the x libraries couldn't run > > > since they couldn't find the libraries. They had installed a bunch of > > > X packages, so one of the packages should have been responsable for > > > making > > > sure that this line was added to /etc/ld.so.conf, correct? > > > > Yes, this has been fixed in unstable. > > Could someone please explain to me the difference between the unstable > and stable directories? Since it seems like all the bug fixes go in > unstable, isn't the unstable stuff more stable than stable? Unstable is the "beta" directory. It contains all the latest releases of debian packages. You are free to download anything from there, just be aware that it might be buggy. However, due to the problems we've been having (lack of testing mainly), the stable distribution can be seen as less stable than unstable, but we are in the process of fixing it. BTW, the ld.so.conf bug is fixed in 1.2.7 which hasn't reached all the mirrors yet. __ Proudly running Debian Linux! Linux vs. Windows is a no-Win situation Igor Grobman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQBVAwUBMwzkmP6MRr9c8VylAQEBtgIAoViVghqb0YOYYkQo3P9qlOQwK3Mtj21G yfWk/4IyAuI589NHagHTnBm+Ek6Cn/2sr1tkDqI9bB8yl1X8UOXsZQ== =S5Oc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unstable vs. Stable
On 19 Feb 1997, Rob Browning wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John T. Larkin) writes: > > > This was bad; everything linked with the x libraries couldn't run > > since they couldn't find the libraries. They had installed a bunch of > > X packages, so one of the packages should have been responsable for making > > sure that this line was added to /etc/ld.so.conf, correct? > > Yes, this has been fixed in unstable. Could someone please explain to me the difference between the unstable and stable directories? Since it seems like all the bug fixes go in unstable, isn't the unstable stuff more stable than stable? -=- Daniel Robbins School of Medicine Computer Services University of New Mexico [email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
