On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:24:25 -0800,
Joe Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > The point I was making is that most of us have better things to do
> > > than search more than 5 pages of google hits. If the 'right
> > > places' to get Debian applications were listed
> > The point I was making is that most of us have better things to do than
> > search more than 5 pages of google hits. If the 'right places' to get
> > Debian applications were listed on the debian homepages, this wouldn't be
> > necessary. (more on this below)
>
> All of the "right" places alr
Since this post has no technical merits, I separated it out.
> > I've been using Linux since 0.7x kernels, so you can skip the patronizing.
> > Last time I checked, some of my patches were still in the driver sources
> > for various adapters.
> Though I must say I'm extremely curious how you mana
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 12:14, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > So much for the topic at hand... in general: fear not.
> > It's part of the Linux learning process that one learns where to pick up
> > information. man, info, /usr/share/doc/, www... google is your friend,
> > but google is not the be-all and end-a
> So much for the topic at hand... in general: fear not.
> It's part of the Linux learning process that one learns where to pick up
> information. man, info, /usr/share/doc/, www... google is your friend,
> but google is not the be-all and end-all of everything.
> Especially if you what you're look
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 03:56, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > Use a real package manager (not apt-get) which shows you new packages.
>
> The really funny thing about this whole topic is that we've now come full
> circle. Read the subject line.
Well, apt-get simply is no package manager. At least not in th
> > > Kernel updates go in pretty quickly, as a rule. wireless-tools is up to
> > > date in testing, and linux-wlan-ng is only a fraction behind unstable.
> >
> > Why isn't it showing me these?
>
> Kernel package names change, therefore package management tools don't
> upgrade them automatically
> Please, stop complaining, and do your research
Actually, your comments here are demonstrating just how inadequate the
apt-get documentation is. Because I read through it a dozen times -- and
was already making notes to suggest cleaning it up -- and I never saw
anything about the 'policy' comma
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:19:47AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0600, DePriest, Jason R. wrote:
> > > Try adding this line to your /etc/apt/apt.conf file and see if you get
> > > better results with your 'apt-get update':
> > > APT::Default-R
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:53:12AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > Ah, that would explain your confusion. 'apt-get upgrade' isn't what you
> > want, since as documented in the apt-get(8) man page it will not install
> > new packages. In particular, if you attempt to use 'apt-get u
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:46:30AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > HOWEVER, both of these commands are starting from the goal of upgrading
> > to newer versions of packages you _already_ have installed. It gives
> > you no idea what _else_ might be included in sarge.
>
> That's exactly what I want.
> Ah, that would explain your confusion. 'apt-get upgrade' isn't what you
> want, since as documented in the apt-get(8) man page it will not install
> new packages. In particular, if you attempt to use 'apt-get upgrade' to
> upgrade from stable to testing, it will refuse to upgrade libc6 because
>
> You seem to have a fairly big misconception here: Adding testing to the
> sources.list and doing an apt-get update and upgrade will _not_ reflect
> how many packages are in testing. Not by any stretch.
> First off, apt-get upgrade and apt-get dist-upgrade are very different:
> upgrade will ins
> > Try adding this line to your /etc/apt/apt.conf file and see if you get
> > better results with your 'apt-get update':
> > APT::Default-Release "testing";
>
> That's unnecessary if you only have one release listed in
> /etc/apt/sources.list (which is the configuration I'd strongly
> recommend)
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:47:54 +
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I actually use Debian testing as a desktop, eight hours a day, five days
> a week. It works great.
Moi aussi.
But there are some kde-related packages that just won't install - e.g.
quanta, which I wanted to have a look a
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0600, DePriest, Jason R. wrote:
> From: Joe Rhett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Let me rephrase. Either the US mirrors are screwed, or there is
> > less than a dozen packages in testing. Because adding testing to
> > the sources list and doing an apt-get updat
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:51:45PM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > Joe Rhett wrote:
> > > If testing is what is supposed to be the next release, then it seems
> > > pointless to even bother. "Testing" still has Mozilla 1.0. That's what,
> > > 2 years old?
> >
> > We're working o
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:51:45PM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > > If testing is what is supposed to be the next release, then it seems
> > > pointless to even bother. "Testing" still has Mozilla 1.0. That's what,
> > > 2 years old?
> >
> > We're working on it, but the mozilla package is buggy, whi
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Rhett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 3:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Alex Malinovich
> Subject: Re: What's the best package manager for
> single-package upgrades?
> Let me rephrase. Either the
> > If testing is what is supposed to be the next release, then it seems
> > pointless to even bother. "Testing" still has Mozilla 1.0. That's what,
> > 2 years old?
>
> We're working on it, but the mozilla package is buggy, which makes it
> difficult to make the testing management scripts happy
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:57:02PM +, Richard Kimber wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 14:35:20 +
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IRC channels are the best you're likely to do for running guidance. If
> > there's really serious hose-your-system breakage then somebody usually
> > pos
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 14:35:20 +
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What would be really helpful would be if there was some easy-to-find
> > running guidance on what testing users should do - like "don't do a
> > dist-upgrade just yet" ... etc. Maybe there is such information - if
> > s
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:52:34PM +, Richard Kimber wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:21:44 +
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's not true. KDE 3 went in just a few days ago (albeit somewhat
> > broken for now)
>
> Indeed.
>
> What would be really helpful would be if there
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:21:44 +
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's not true. KDE 3 went in just a few days ago (albeit somewhat
> broken for now)
Indeed.
What would be really helpful would be if there was some easy-to-find
running guidance on what testing users should do - like "
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 02:00:14AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:23:48AM -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > Well, in my experience, testing is most useful immediately following a
> > new stable release, and least useful immediately preceding a new stable
> > release. If you we
> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 02:35, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > I find it kindof sad that testing really doesn't appear to have any
> > function any longer. One would like to run from testing and leave unstable
> > for the well, unstable stuff. But I haven't really found much in testing,
> > which means one
On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 02:35, Joe Rhett wrote:
--snip--
> 1. Set the unstable archives to a higher preference in /etc/apt/preferences
> 2. "apt-get upgrade" to update the entire lot?
> ... or am I missing a step?
That's about it. Simple really. :)
> I find it kindof sad that testing really d
> Joe wrote:
> > So I am writing here in hopes I'm overlooking
> > something. Please, tell me
> > how one can update just one package and its
> > dependancies, without doing a
> > full-on conversion from Woody to unstable? If a
> > single package forces one
> > to upgrade completely to unstable b
--- Joe Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, this
is probably a bonehead user question but
> I'm just getting used
> to Debian. Not normally a bonehead :-(
>
> I would like/prefer to run 'stable'. Debian/Woody
> installed on my laptop
> perfectly fine. Wireless/WEP, IPsec, X all up and
> r
Okay, this is probably a bonehead user question but I'm just getting used
to Debian. Not normally a bonehead :-(
I would like/prefer to run 'stable'. Debian/Woody installed on my laptop
perfectly fine. Wireless/WEP, IPsec, X all up and running SWEET.
Unfortunately, the stable browser is 'zilla
30 matches
Mail list logo
