On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 04:59:53PM -0600 , Gordon Sadler wrote:
I'm not 100% clear why Debian has Priority: required ... and
Essential: yes, seems there is probably a historical reason. It would
probably be less confusing/complex to use just one to designate both.
no. Essential: yes is there
I recently got a new hard drive and wanted to reinstall Debian on it.
The machine tracks unstable, so I figured it would be easier just to
download all the relevant .debs and dpkg -i them into the target file
system, than make boot floppies for Potato and then re-upgrade.
Installing debs onto a
"Zack Weinberg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Installing debs onto a bare system proved to be harder than I'd
thought. Obviously you start with the Essential packages.
Isn't unpacking base2_2.tgz the easiest way to start, or has this been
obsoleted now? I agree it's less elegant.
I ran this script
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 11:14:51AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I ran this script for all the Essential packages and the transitive
closure of their dependencies. In case you're curious, these are all
the packages which are not Essential but included in the transitive
closure:
libc6
"Colin" == Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Colin "Zack Weinberg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Installing debs onto a bare system proved to be harder than I'd
thought. Obviously you start with the Essential packages.
Colin Isn't unpacking base2_2.tgz the easiest way to
5 matches
Mail list logo
