On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:06:30PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
Michael D Schleif [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004:03:18:20:05:40-0800] scribed:
Your best bet if you don't want to reinstall is watch closely after
sarge goes stable for a new unstable fork off to
If I understand this correctly, users of 'testing' (currently
'sarge') can do *nothing* when new security problems arise? They
must wait for the fix in 'unstable' to make it into testing.
pj You knew going in that the only safe path is stable, you were
pj warned!
Certainly! ;-)
* Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004:03:18:20:05:40-0800] scribed:
snip /
Not particularly. I've never downgraded libc successfully on a
machine across major version changes without having to reinstall.
Your best bet if you don't want to reinstall is watch closely after
sarge goes stable
* Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004:03:18:22:58:47-0800] scribed:
snip /
My opinion is that testing should not be publicly available until it is
in the release candidate or beta stage, or whatever you want to call
it. Up until that point, it should be a virtual distribution only
existing
Michael D Schleif [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004:03:18:20:05:40-0800] scribed:
snip /
Not particularly. I've never downgraded libc successfully on a
machine across major version changes without having to reinstall.
Your best bet if you don't want to
myh On 2004-03-19, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
myh
myh Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for
myh stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using
myh testing distributions must wait the allotted amount of time
myh before receiving the unstable update
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:32:59AM -0400, Kenneth Jacker wrote:
myh On 2004-03-19, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
myh Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for
myh stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using
myh testing distributions must wait the allotted
Kenneth Jacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
myh On 2004-03-19, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
myh
myh Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for
myh stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using
myh testing distributions must wait the allotted amount of time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 19 March 2004 18:17, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
I wasn't claiming that unstable is a better choice than stable for, er,
stability; I was claiming it was a better choice than testing.
I understood you, but I asked the original question. I
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 03:31:38PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote..
However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing works
well right now since we're near a release and almost everything in
there is in a releasable state, but after sarge releases, watch out.
Presently these
Hello Kevin!
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 07:44:46AM -0500, Kevin Coyner wrote:
Presently these two lines accomplish the same thing:
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ sarge main non-free contrib
Once Sarge releases, will
On 2004-03-19, Paul Johnson penned:
Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
Unstable is where bug fixes, new packages, etc are first introduced
into a debian distribution. (There's also something called
experimental, but that's not a proper distribution.)
The important ones,
On 2004-03-19, Travis Crump penned:
Unstable, on the other hand, breaks much more spectacularly on package
installation with no warning other than people moaning on the
lists/IRC/BTS. I don't want to imply that this is a frequent
occurence, but it does happen...
I've only been bitten in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been Distro hopping for the last few weeks and am very impressed with the
Debian system. It's probably going to become the distro on all my machines
very shortly.
I'm going to be running Woody on one machine and Sarge on another for testing
Michael Satterwhite [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the procedure for this type of an upgrade? IOW, what
commands would be given to apt to move the machine to the next
version?
Had you searched the archives, you would not have had to wait for me
to tell you to update your sources.list to
On 2004-03-18, Michael Satterwhite penned:
I've been Distro hopping for the last few weeks and am very impressed
with the Debian system. It's probably going to become the distro on
all my machines very shortly.
I'm going to be running Woody on one machine and Sarge on another for
testing
Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sometime after that, I'll want to upgrade from Woody to Sarge on my
base machine; a few months after that, I'll consider moving my test
machine to Sid.
I'm no expert, but I think this is not quite right.
At the moment, Woody = stable, Sarge =
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine? The
testing distro is a little odd in that it's really intended for
developers, not users. It's the stuff they're
On 2004-03-18, Michael Satterwhite penned:
On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine?
The testing distro is a little odd in that it's really intended for
developers, not users. It's the stuff they're working
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:03, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
I do development on the machine running Sarge. The package list in the
stable list gets a bit dated for me. They, however, are perfect for
the machine that *HAS* to be up and stable. I
Michael Satterwhite [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine? The
testing distro is a little odd in that it's really intended for
developers, not users. It's the stuff they're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote:
Michael Satterwhite [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine? The
testing distro
On 2004-03-19, Michael Satterwhite penned:
On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote:
However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing
works well right now since we're near a release and almost everything
in there is in a releasable state, but after sarge releases,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 18 March 2004 18:35, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
Say you have package A that makes it past unstable and into testing.
Then someone finds a bug in package A. It turns out to be an icky bug,
and it takes quite a while to fix it. The bug
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-03-19, Michael Satterwhite penned:
On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote:
However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing
works well right now since we're near a
On Thursday 18 March 2004 21:35, Paul Johnson wrote:
Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure that less stable is the right term, but less usable
almost certainly is.
backports.org is your friend.
Here's a question for the more experienced folks: is downgrading from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Travis Casey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 18 March 2004 21:35, Paul Johnson wrote:
Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure that less stable is the right term, but less usable
almost certainly is.
backports.org is
Michael Satterwhite wrote:
On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote:
However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing works
well right now since we're near a release and almost everything in there
is in a releasable state, but after sarge releases, watch out.
I'm sure
Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Say you have package A that makes it past unstable and into testing.
Then someone finds a bug in package A. It turns out to be an icky bug,
and it takes quite a while to fix it. The bug will be fixed in unstable
before trickling down into testing.
Travis Casey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 18 March 2004 21:35, Paul Johnson wrote:
Monique Y. Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure that less stable is the right term, but less usable
almost certainly is.
backports.org is your friend.
Here's a question for the more
30 matches
Mail list logo
