[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Why the heck doesn't Debian use the release number (e.g., 1.3, 1.3.x) as
: the primary (canonical) name? Then when you seem 1.2 and 1.3, you can
: tell which is newer and which is older.
That was done one time: whilst 1.0 was being developed, it was stored on
the
From: David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bo is the current stable release; hamm is unstable. The names are just
codenames, which never change. ...
For some reason, some people object to the user of these codenames (don't
ask me why; every project in real life has a codename) so ...
And
I wish you luck, Robert. I had used the previous few sets of CD from
Infomagic to install Debian. My memory reminds me that Infomagic
is BAD for Debian !! There were important packages, for instance
I can remember that xlib6_3.2-1a.1.deb which I thought is quite
important nowadays wasn't in the
Hi,
I've tried several times in the past year or so to install debian,
typically it installs ok from the 5 base floppies I make, but the kernel
hangs upon booting after the install. I suspect my odd NCR scsi card (an
ASUS SC-200) is confusing it, in combination with some other probing.
Anyway, I
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Robert Grunloh wrote:
But before I can do this, I have to ask: I've read the Debian FAQ on the
web page, the part that explains the directory tree at the ftp sites; but
what it should explain but doesn't is, what is hamm and bo? I see mention
of these terms in
David Wright writes:
For some reason, some people object to the user of these codenames (don't
ask me why; every project in real life has a codename)...
Because they confuse Mr. Grunloh.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do
Because they confuse Mr. Grunloh.
Be nice to the user, please.
I wish they'd just used the Official CD images, or at least the program
that generates the Official CD images. They'd have a bootable CD in that
case, and you would not need any floppies at all.
You should be able to install this
7 matches
Mail list logo
