> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:50PM -0500 or thereabouts, Michael B Allen wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:23:57PM -0500 or thereabouts, Michael B Allen >> wrote: >> >> > We're trying to help you, but some people just will not read. Why do you >> >> > need a backport? Becasue there isn't a package for Woody, well DUH! >> >> > >> >> > I told you to get a backport, there is a Aspell backport for Woody. I >> >> > told you how to find it yesterday. For spoonfeeding, here you go: >> >> >> >> So basically your stance is "breaking dependencies is ok because you can just >> go >> >> and dig up an alternative package from mysteryserver.org". I'm a bit >> concerned >> >> by >> >> your insistance that this problem is due to ignorance on my part. Or perhaps >> >> you've had this conversation a few times already and you're trying to justify >> >> your >> >> own misguided beliefs. >> > >> > Listen I'm walking the walk -- if you want to install Aspell and keep >> > Woody, you have no choice. There are no broken dependencies if you use a >> > backport, that's what a backport is all about. If you're unsure as to >> > what you're getting, don't do it. It's really quite simple. >> > >> > I've done this for two packages. Aspell and mutt, while running Woody. >> >> You know I moved to Debian because I started to patch my RH 7.3 system with >> rebuilt glibc 2.2 rpms from their glibc 2.3 source rpms. That was the only way >> to >> get an up-to-date system. I thought Debian would take greater care in >> maintaining >> a working up-to-date system for the long term. Listening to you say "if you want >> to install Aspell and keep Woody, you have no choice" confirms my fear that this >> is not the case. > > With Debian you have choice. If you wish a cutting edge system use Unstable > (Sarge), > or one less cutting edge use Testing (Sid). If you insist on wanting > a new version of Aspell that's not in Stable <snip>
THERE IS NO ASPELL *AT ALL* IN STABLE. Let me rephrase that: IN STABLE, THERE IS NO ASPELL *AT ALL*. Are you "getting it" yet? -- A program should be written to model the concepts of the task it performs rather than the physical world or a process because this maximizes the potential for it to be applied to tasks that are conceptually similar and, more important, to tasks that have not yet been conceived. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
