On 24-Apr-00, 11:23 (CDT), "Juergen A. Erhard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Craig> upgrading to whatever the latest stable releases is
> Craig> requires just as much caution/paranoia as upgrading to
> Craig> whatever is in the latest unstable. anyone who trusts the
> Craig> latest
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> "Craig" == Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Craig> upgrading to whatever the latest stable releases is
Craig> requires just as much caution/paranoia as upgrading to
Craig> whatever is in the latest unstable. anyone wh
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Like during the Perl transition period, or when a recent libstdc++
> broke apt, or when su stopped being able to su, or when
>
> Need I continue?
But that's Craig's problem and not yours, and is not
a rea
work properly before
installing it on your production servers.
So, you aren't going to get burned by a broken libc, libpam or
whatever from unstable.
So, you have no need of unfettered access to the poorly-audited
packages in incoming from a local mirror.
So, you're making my brain hurt. Waah!
John P.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mdt.net.au/~john Debian Linux admin & support:technical services
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:45:12PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
> ... so why not just package up unstable and release it without fixing
> bugs if using them is the same? I think I'm missing something
> here. Even if you're cautious, isn't unstable more likely to have
> bugs (the RC list comes to mind
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:07:02AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> If you are so careful and clueful, why do you need instant access to an
> incoming mirror?
to fix the machine(s) i use to test any upgrades. the fact that they are
unimportant enough to test an upgrade on doesn't mean
7;s a copy hanging around...").
Anyway, it's not a major issue - access to Incoming is normally not
essential.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgp5P1ICROacU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
escribing is a problem with the package life cycle, not the
> replication of incoming. Let me reiterate:
>
> DO NOT USE INCOMING
>
> The files may be trojans, corrupt, partial, massively screwed, fail
> lintian, whatever. Massive, massive caution is advised!
Absolutely! I was
are safe.
>
> if you don't have a clue or you are not cautious, then neither are.
If you are so careful and clueful, why do you need instant access to an
incoming mirror?
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
t? i appreciate people who fiddle with
> unstable releases, they make them stable, whereas the people fiddling with
> stable releases hopefully make them more stable.
Nothing is wrong with following unstable. But I don't think we should keep
around resources like incoming mirrors simply
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Sanders writes:
>On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> > debian 'unstable' is perfectly usable for production servers, using
>> > it for such does not require any more
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 08:49:17PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > debian 'unstable' is perfectly usable for production servers, using
> > > it for such does not req
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > debian 'unstable' is perfectly usable for production servers, using
> > it for such does not require any more caution about upgrades than
> > using debian 'stable' or
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible for Incoming to be made avalible via FTP as well as
> > HTTP? Both can have problems with firewalls and forced proxying, but
>
> I don't think so, ftp is going to remain
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> The files may be trojans, corrupt, partial, massively screwed, fail
> lintian, whatever. Massive, massive caution is advised!
I thougth that we're in this business for several years now.
Another time warp?
Regards,
Joey
--
Experience is something you don't get
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Like during the Perl transition period, or when a recent libstdc++
> broke apt, or when su stopped being able to su, or when
What you are describing is a problem with the package life cycle, not the
replication of incoming. Let me reiterat
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> debian 'unstable' is perfectly usable for production servers, using it
> for such does not require any more caution about upgrades than using
> debian 'stable' or debian 'frozen'.
Like during the Perl transition period, or when a rec
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
> Would it be possible for Incoming to be made avalible via FTP as well as
> HTTP? Both can have problems with firewalls and forced proxying, but
I don't think so, ftp is going to remain turned off on that machine. If
you can't fetch thi
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 11:37:39PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Yeah...that's it, I'm for getting rid of incoming mirrors to save cpu and
> bandwidth on one of our resources...that's so selfish of me. God forbid I
Would it be possible for Incoming to be made avalible vi
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:39:30PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > If you weren't following unstable on critical machines, maybe that
> > > wouldn't happen. Then again, I guess as a develope
o not even warrant security advisories, since problems are "inherent" to
the distribution by definition.
Just because you feel it is ok to run unstable on production servers, and
think that certain things should be made available to you because of it
(incoming mirrors) does not make i
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:39:30PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> If you weren't following unstable on critical machines, maybe that
> wouldn't happen. Then again, I guess as a developer, we are all oblidged
> to waste cpu and bandwidth (both of which we have plenty of, of course,
> there seems to be
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:20:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 02:51:28PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > > I hope to dismantle the sites mirroring incoming in favor of
> > > > direct ac
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 02:51:28PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > I hope to dismantle the sites mirroring incoming in favor of
> > > direct access, it ultimately will use less bandwidth/cpu.
> >
> > this is bad
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > *** DO NOT MIRROR THIS SITE ***
> >
> > I hope to dismantle the sites mirroring incoming in favor of direct
> > access, it ultimately will use less bandwidth/cpu.
>
> this is bad. sometimes installing stuff from i
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:12:30PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> The following URL will yeild the incoming directory on master,
>
> http://incoming.debian.org/
>
> The purpose of this is to allow non-developers to fetch specific packages
> from incoming at the explicit p
The following URL will yeild the incoming directory on master,
http://incoming.debian.org/
The purpose of this is to allow non-developers to fetch specific packages
from incoming at the explicit prompting of debian developers.
*** DO NOT MIRROR THIS SITE ***
I hope to dismantle the sites
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 01:43:48AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > In the process of enacting the policy change to disallow ftp, the question
> > came up about incoming.
> >
> > It has been suggested that we make incoming availab
On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 12:20:20AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 01:43:48AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > It has been suggested that we make incoming available via a path like
> > http://incoming.debian.org/incoming and most likely dismantle the inco
On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 01:43:48AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> In the process of enacting the policy change to disallow ftp, the question
> came up about incoming.
>
> It has been suggested that we make incoming available via a path like
> http://incoming.debian.org/incoming
In the process of enacting the policy change to disallow ftp, the question
came up about incoming.
It has been suggested that we make incoming available via a path like
http://incoming.debian.org/incoming and most likely dismantle the incoming
mirror network (all 4 of them :>).
This would o
31 matches
Mail list logo
