At 16 Jun 1998 11:42:39 -0400, Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
>
> >
> > Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I will be out of town after tomorrow for about a week, so I won't
> > > be able to do anything on the README before th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
>
> Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I will be out of town after tomorrow for about a week, so I won't
> > be able to do anything on the README before then, but I don't think
> > 2.0 will be released before then.
>
> Perhaps not. Anyho
Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> > Interesting. Apparently, there's going to be coverage of these topics
> > in the release notes, not the install.sgml document.
> >
> > Volunteers? I'm a bit overcommitted ;)
>
> I wrote the autoup.sh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There is a README for autoup.sh on
> > {ftp|http}://debian.vicnet.net.au/autoup/.
> >
> > Both the README and autoup.sh should have a separate (simplified)
> > version for use on the CD. (For insta
Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
>
> > (a) we need specific installation instructions for upgrading. Igor,
> > is this supposed to be part of the install.sgml document, or is it
> > separate?
> >
> > (b) recommend for upgrades that use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> (a) we need specific installation instructions for upgrading. Igor,
> is this supposed to be part of the install.sgml document, or is it
> separate?
>
> (b) recommend for upgrades that users use *either* autoup.sh or, if
> they are daring,
On 14 Jun 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Finally, there are still some reports that apt segfaults for some
> systems. Jason has done an excellent job of responding to these
> issues as they arise, but it's natural there may be bugs yet in the
> system. So I feel that droping the road-tested auto
Some time around 14 Jun 1998 13:28:00 EDT,
Adam P. Harris wrote:
>
> This issue has been addressed in some detail by the testing group. To
> begin with, I must point out that some dpkg installation methods these
> days do quite a nice job of package ordering on their own (I think
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 01:07:33AM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > > [Yeah, it's new software -- it's also the best way to keep the hamm
> > > upgrade from completely breaking an existing debian installation.]
> > The autoup.sh script also does the job well, doesn't it?
>
On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 12:59:49AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> : My personal opinion is that Apt is *already* the way to go.
>
> Absolutely. 100% of the people I've suggested apt to (which is now almost
> everyone in my circle of Debian friends) has
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
: My personal opinion is that Apt is *already* the way to go.
Absolutely. 100% of the people I've suggested apt to (which is now almost
everyone in my circle of Debian friends) has switched to it for good. I have
had several people tell me that the apt
On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 01:07:33AM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > [Yeah, it's new software -- it's also the best way to keep the hamm
> > upgrade from completely breaking an existing debian installation.]
> The autoup.sh script also does the job well, doesn't it?
Not for new installs. Having th
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I noticed that apt is not yet in hamm. In my opinion, this is the
> > currently the single most important issue for hamm: unless we have
> > a real good reason, we should be focussing our efforts around putting
> > apt into hamm.
Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> I noticed that apt is not yet in hamm. In my opinion, this is the
> currently the single most important issue for hamm: unless we have
> a real good reason, we should be focussing our efforts around putting
> apt into hamm.
IMHO, the single most importan
I noticed that apt is not yet in hamm. In my opinion, this is the
currently the single most important issue for hamm: unless we have
a real good reason, we should be focussing our efforts around putting
apt into hamm.
[Yeah, it's new software -- it's also the best way to keep the hamm
upgrade fro
15 matches
Mail list logo
