On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 08:10:37 -0600 "John W. M. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:13:24PM -0500, Todd Pytel wrote: > > I backed up my sources.list, > > OK . . . > > > changed it to unstable, > > "It"? Did you mean the APT::Default-Release value? I guess so - I don't know the proper Debian terminology. I switched "testing" for "unstable" > > did an apt-get update, apt-get install gnome-core, > > OK. > > > and then restored the old sources.list. > > There isn't a command line option for specifying this? I thought that > was what -t, --target-release and --default-release were for? Perhaps. I didn't say that this was the only way to do it. > > Works fine. Nautilus 2 is worlds faster than the > > original, fonts are nice, everything is anti-aliased, blah, blah, > > blah... > > OK. > > > If you're absolutely opposed to any unstable packages, then I > > guess you're screwed. That's what you get for running testing. > > What, are you saying that I'm less likely to get screwed by running > experimental, than testing? > > I didn't know that. Why? No, what I'm saying is that if you run testing, you can't always expect that packages will play well together. It's an automated distribution, so you get strange results when one package is held up by a dependency or unstable has switched to a new major version. In this case, that means either 1) putting a hold on the GNOME packages until all of them are in testing, or 2) getting the other core GNOME 2 packages from unstable. If you just moved to testing in the last 2 weeks, then it's probably too late for #1, since some 1.4 packages are already out of your package lists. That leaves #2. That's life in Testing. GNOME 2 may be the first time you've hit odd release problems like this, but it will probably not be your last. --Todd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
