Re: noninteractive upgrades of packages

On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 05:02:31PM -0500, Nick Cabatoff wrote: > I'm interested in being able to upgrade packages noninteractively, > assuming that the postinst script itself is noninteractive. Search as > I might however, I can't find any easy way around dpkg's handling of > conffiles. I'm quite

Re: Less interactive upgrades.

On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 06:24:47PM -0500, Will Lowe wrote: > > One other question: Does anyone think having a "never ask about this > > config file again" option is a good thing? I'm torn. > > Not on a per-conffile basis, I think. Maybe there should be a way to make > the default for _all_ conffil

Re: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 06:30:40PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote: > i don't really feel that this issue pertains specifically to the kernel, or > X, or apache. it has much more to do with the fact that our release practice > makes it impossible to have Good Software Now. we spend all of our time > fixin

Re: apt-get upgrade unstable killed old libc5-compat

On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 08:06:47PM -0500, Mr. Christopher F. Miller wrote: > RE: potato upgrade killed libc5 Yes, and it's now fixed with ldso 1.9.11-3, which should be propagating around the mirrors right now - if it isn't already. It's on ftp.debian.org atm. - Rob -- For a man to truly under