On Du, 11 iul 21, 06:54:31, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-07-11 at 03:31, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > While your testing + stable as needed mix is pretty simple[1] the
> > reverse mix stable + select packages from testing requires adequate
> > pinning and can quickly become problematic for any
On 2021-07-11 at 03:31, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 10 iul 21, 14:38:39, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2021-07-10 at 14:18, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>> It depends :)
>>>
>>> In my opinion I'd say the order from less to more dangerous
>>> would be:
>>>
>>> 1. stable + select packages from stable
On Sb, 10 iul 21, 14:38:39, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-07-10 at 14:18, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> > On Sb, 10 iul 21, 06:51:43, Brian Thompson wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 2021-07-10 at 13:43 +0200, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Debian unstable with bits of experimental here
> >>
On Sat 10 Jul 2021 at 13:48:12 -0500, Brian Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-07-10 at 21:18 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > Testing doesn't have any direct security support
>
> Is that 100% true? I was originally referring to
Almost, for most of the time and in normal circumstances.. It depen
On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 01:48:12PM -0500, Brian Thompson wrote:
> Thank you for the detailed response, Andrei.
>
> On Sat, 2021-07-10 at 21:18 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > Testing doesn't have any direct security support
>
> Is that 100% true? I was originally referring to
> http://securi
Thank you for the detailed response, Andrei.
On Sat, 2021-07-10 at 21:18 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Testing doesn't have any direct security support
Is that 100% true? I was originally referring to
http://security.debian.org/debian-security/dists/testing-security
when I was talking about
On Sat 10 Jul 2021 at 14:38:39 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> I'm a little surprised to see that you don't even mention the mix which
> I've been running for the last decade-plus: stable + testing, which
Most likely an oversight.
--
Brian.
On 2021-07-10 at 14:18, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 10 iul 21, 06:51:43, Brian Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2021-07-10 at 13:43 +0200, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Debian unstable with bits of experimental here
>>
>> Is it (usually) wise to intermix different suites?
>
> It de
On Sb, 10 iul 21, 06:51:43, Brian Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-07-10 at 13:43 +0200, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Hi, Debian unstable with bits of experimental here
>
> Is it (usually) wise to intermix different suites?
It depends :)
In my opinion I'd say the order from less to more da
On Vi, 17 mai 19, 17:05:40, Francisco M Neto wrote:
> As the first in a series of (maybe 2) posts about Debian's release cycle,
> I'vecreated the following post.
>
> I would love to receive any feedback on it.
>
> http://fmneto.com.br/en/en/archives/2019/tracking-busters-release/
Disclaimer: b
Hello!
On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 16:06 +0100, Paul Sutton wrote:
> On 21/05/2019 03:19, Francisco M Neto wrote:
> >
> > I've writted the second part, and it should be going up tomorrow
> > morning:
> >
> > http://fmneto.com.br/en/archives/2019/tracking-the-debian-release-cycle
> >
> > I hope you li
On 21/05/2019 03:19, Francisco M Neto wrote:
> Thank you all for the answers!
>
> I've writted the second part, and it should be going up tomorrow
> morning:
>
> http://fmneto.com.br/en/archives/2019/tracking-the-debian-release-cycle
>
> I hope you like it.
>
> Cheers!
Hi Francisco
Great work
Thank you all for the answers!
I've writted the second part, and it should be going up tomorrow
morning:
http://fmneto.com.br/en/archives/2019/tracking-the-debian-release-cycle
I hope you like it.
Cheers!
Francisco
On Fri, 2019-05-17 at 23:12 -0700, Peter Ehlert wrote:
> looking forward to it
looking forward to it, thanks
On 5/17/19 1:55 PM, Francisco M Neto wrote:
On Fri, 2019-05-17 at 21:35 +0100, Joe wrote:
Don't forget:
https://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
I'm gonna cover that on the next post ;-)
On Fri, 2019-05-17 at 21:35 +0100, Joe wrote:
> Don't forget:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
I'm gonna cover that on the next post ;-)
--
[]'s,
Francisco M Neto
GPG: 4096R/D692FBF0
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, 17 May 2019 21:20:23 +0100
Paul Sutton wrote:
> On 17/05/2019 21:05, Francisco M Neto wrote:
> > As the first in a series of (maybe 2) posts about Debian's release
> > cycle, I'vecreated the following post.
> >
> > I would love to receive any feedback on it.
> >
> > http://fmneto.com.br/
On 17/05/2019 21:05, Francisco M Neto wrote:
> As the first in a series of (maybe 2) posts about Debian's release cycle,
> I'vecreated the following post.
>
> I would love to receive any feedback on it.
>
> http://fmneto.com.br/en/en/archives/2019/tracking-busters-release/
>
This is excellent
As the first in a series of (maybe 2) posts about Debian's release cycle,
I'vecreated the following post.
I would love to receive any feedback on it.
http://fmneto.com.br/en/en/archives/2019/tracking-busters-release/
--
[]'s,
Francisco M Neto
GPG: 4096R/D692FBF0
signature.asc
Description:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 21:04:14 +0100
John Rogers wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I was doing some software archeology and found that I would like to
> install a couple of older Debian releases in virtual machines for
> comparison. Releases from 3.0 and above was very easy to find [1], but
Hi.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 21:04:14 +0100
John Rogers wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I was doing some software archeology and found that I would like to
> install a couple of older Debian releases in virtual machines for
> comparison. Releases from 3.0 and above was very easy to find [1]
Hello.
I was doing some software archeology and found that I would like to
install a couple of older Debian releases in virtual machines for
comparison. Releases from 3.0 and above was very easy to find [1], but
I can't find anything from before that.
I have seen that it should be possib
On Ubuntu Maverick 32-bit, Ubuntu Natty 64-bit and Debian Squeeze 64-bit
the mouse wheel doesn't work. It's ok for older Ubuntu and Debian
installs, but those aren't installed any more, just old openSUSE 11.2
64-bit still is on my computer and there the mouse wheel still and
always is ok.
Sometimes
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 13:23:43 +0100, John Smith (lbalba...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I was trying to download the CD/DVD iso images of the older Debian
> release 3.1_r5 releases, but it seems like none of the mirrors carry
> it anymore: the directory /debian-cd/project/build/3.1_r5/ on
> cdimage.deb
> I was trying to download the CD/DVD iso images of the older Debian
> release 3.1_r5 releases, but it seems like none of the mirrors carry
> it anymore: the directory /debian-cd/project/build/3.1_r5/ on
> cdimage.debian.org only seems to contain a single text file that says
> 'cd dvd'. Is there a
Hi,
I was trying to download the CD/DVD iso images of the older Debian
release 3.1_r5 releases, but it seems like none of the mirrors carry
it anymore: the directory /debian-cd/project/build/3.1_r5/ on
cdimage.debian.org only seems to contain a single text file that says
'cd dvd'. Is there a way
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 11:16:34AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On 5/24/06, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> >> By the way is there a distro out there considered as stable as
> >> Debian's Stable. This is not a question of which is a better dist
On 5/24/06, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> By the way is there a distro out there considered as stable as
> Debian's Stable. This is not a question of which is a better distro
> (too many variables involved there), but just a question of, "which
> dist
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Hi,
It's well-known that Debian releases are rock-solid. But I've been
wondering if there's been a comparison between various releases as
regards stability. It would be nice if there's some commentary from
long-time Debian users (say those who expe
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:18:28PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Hi,
> It's well-known that Debian releases are rock-solid. But I've been
> wondering if there's been a comparison between various releases as
> regards stability. It would be nice if there's
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Hi,
> It's well-known that Debian releases are rock-solid. But I've been
> wondering if there's been a comparison between various releases as
> regards stability. It would be nice if there's some commentary from
> long-time Debian
Hi,
It's well-known that Debian releases are rock-solid. But I've been
wondering if there's been a comparison between various releases as
regards stability. It would be nice if there's some commentary from
long-time Debian users (say those who experienced it pre-Woody), a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Massey) said on Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:14:05 +1000:
> want the very latest and are willing to sacrifice stability." Or
> something like that. Explain what the release names mean more accurately,
> rather than use new names that will still need explanation.
And one thing that re
Benedict Verheyen wrote:
On a related note, I'm trying to understand the whole concept on
stable - unstable because in a few weeks time i'm going to get the time
from my current company to install some test servers with debian to
compare them to windows. They will be running apache, tomcat,jboss
a
s. keeling wrote:
>> So if you install backports, you introduce new releases of packages
>> and maybe libraries on your system which might contain serious bugs.
>> Compiling the source of some apps (to install to /usr/local) might
>> even fail because they need a newer libc6?
>
> Perhaps, yes. But
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oops! Only sent this to Simmel by mistake! Sorry!
> On Friday 16 April 2004 15:53, Simmel wrote:
> > > I believe it is ... I can install a fully functional debian
> > > system in less
> > > time than a Windows 2000 one.
> > > All hardware detected and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>
> I'd say no. If you're tracking sarge/testing, what happens when sarge
> is promoted to stable? If you specify sarge, your machine tracks what
> is now the stable distro; if you specify testing, your
Incoming from Benedict Verheyen:
> > If the user wants/needs newer software than stable provides,
> > the Debian system can accomodate that through the installation of
> > backports or even /usr/local.
>
> That's something i personally don't understand. I'm not sure if i get this
> right but isn't
> If the user wants/needs newer software than stable provides,
> the Debian system can accomodate that through the installation of
> backports or even /usr/local.
That's something i personally don't understand. I'm not sure if i get this
right but isn't the point of running stable on servers that
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:18:58 -0600
"Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> If that's the most important thing, the very next most important thing
> is that the descriptions make clear to non-developer users that testing
> and unstable are not intended for them. I see no such advisory
On 2004-04-16, Chris Metzler penned:
[snip]
>
> But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing
> and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that
> their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're
> fundamentally for. The purpose of t
lying just to not
remain silent. I think this whole renaming of Debian releases thing
is asinine, ignores what Debian's really about, and ignores better
solutions to whatever perceived problems people think exist.
Anyone who doesn't like the installer, go with Libranet; that's their
On (16/04/04 10:28), s. keeling wrote:
> Incoming from Chris Metzler:
> >
> > But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing
> > and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that
> > their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're
> > f
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:28:26 -0600
"s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Incoming from Chris Metzler:
>>
>> But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing
>> and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that
>> their existence gives users choices; bu
s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Chris Metzler:
But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing
and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that
their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're
fundamentally for. The purpose of their
Incoming from Chris Metzler:
>
> But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing
> and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that
> their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're
> fundamentally for. The purpose of their existence i
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:40:19 +0200
"Simmel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So why not think about using a strategy that almost every company uses
> (although Debian isn't one), e.g. Redhat, SuSe, even
> Microdoft... For me as a user and systems administrator
> something like this would be m
> You might like to try the new debian installer
> (http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/) which is in
> development
> at the moment. It's at beta 3. It autodetects a lot of hardware,
> and if you're lucky consists of mostly pressing enter.
>
> > And to get away from M$ ("winzigweich") you
Look guys,
I think we're talking on different subjects here I'm talking about
getting newbies into Linux, especially Debian. And if you tell me that it
can't get more popular with a nice installer, well, erm, I dunno what else
to say, I'm stunned!?! And if you then tell me it would make no sen
- Simmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-04-16 14:18:37 +0200]:
> May sound lazy too, and yes I'm a lazy guy. If my boss tells me to setup an
> apache server and tells me to use debian because the cust would like to have
> especially this distri well heck I'm stuck in the installation routine for
> hou
> I don't mean this to sound rude, but it probably will do. If you need
> it and no-one else is willing to do it, we look forward to submission of
> your patch. If no-one else is willing to devote resources to it, then
> take a step back and ask why.
:-) well said.
> Also, please note that Debi
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 02:18:37PM +0200, Simmel wrote:
> Hi Pete :-)
>
> >
> > Personally I like the current Woody installer :-)
>
> I dislike the old and miserable/poor look of it, reminds me of old dos boxes
> or a blue screen :-)
> I dislike the poor information you sometimes get out of it (n
> I dislike the old and miserable/poor look of it, reminds me of old dos
boxes
> or a blue screen :-)
> I dislike the poor information you sometimes get out of it (not true for
> every inst. step though)
Isn't this down to personal preference tho' - the last time I installed RH
or Mandrake it had
Hi Pete :-)
>
> Personally I like the current Woody installer :-)
I dislike the old and miserable/poor look of it, reminds me of old dos boxes
or a blue screen :-)
I dislike the poor information you sometimes get out of it (not true for
every inst. step though)
> I find it quick and easy to use
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 11:22:22AM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:59:49 -0600
> "Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > My understanding of the 'testing' distribution is in conflict with your
> > description. Testing is the last to receive security updates, and
> P.S.: And while I'm on it, plez enhance the installation routine,
> something like a graphical interface. This takes the fear off most users.
Personally I like the current Woody installer :-)
I find it quick and easy to use - runs nicely on older hardware due to not
having the overhead of an
Hi 2gether,
I read your posts with great interest and I wonder if there might be a
chance to overthink the strategy the Debian People setup once (maybe not at
this moment but in the far future).
You know, I'm also quite a newbie with Debian, and YES the strategy is quite
confusing. And as I read
On 2004-04-15, Will Trillich penned:
>
> john doe will read "stable" and might think it means that "it's got
> all the current upstream bug fixes" when what we mean by it is "we
> stopped adding new stuff to this one a long time ago, and haven't
> found any serious conflicts in quite a long time".
ng 'desktop' for example,
> and you still
> > have to explain that the server release is good
> for desktops
> > if you prefer stability over new stuff, and the
> desktop
> > release might be good for a server if you need
> more recent
> > packages and d
gt; have to explain that the server release is good for desktops
> if you prefer stability over new stuff, and the desktop
> release might be good for a server if you need more recent
> packages and don't want to search for backports. You can't fit
> all that info into a short n
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:22:06 -0400 (EDT)
Thomas Pomber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, I think Monique is incorrect for once.
> Unstable is less stable than testing.
If by "less stable", you mean "less changing in its contents in time,"
then that's true.
But if by "less stable", you mea
Actually, I think Monique is incorrect for once.
Unstable is less stable than testing. But it's the
only way to go, in my humble opinion.
--- Anthony Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On
14 Apr 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> >
> [snip]
>
> > My understanding of the 'testing' distribut
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 4:29 am, Will Trillich wrote:
> here i brainstorm to conjure up some naming scheme possibilities
> (referring to current status as of 13 apr 2004):
>
> sid -- alternatives to "UNSTABLE":
> - "UNKNOWN"
> - "DANGEROUS"
> - "CAVORT
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 03:18 pm, mike wrote:
>I think the names are just fine.
>The code names are great and the debian Names (Stable, Testing, Unstable)
> are as they should be. If they are changed, I think we would have more
> questions asking about the naming scheme.
>
>Mike
I agree with so
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 11:13:41AM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:19:39 +0300
> Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>sarge -- alternatives to "TESTING":
> >
> > - desktop
> > - user
> > - mostly stable
> > - freezing
>
In that case it should
>
> it's important to note that the present branding scheme
> (unstable / testing / stable) is certainly ACCURATE from the
> point-of-view of the programmers and script-writers -- but for
> the public-at-large, those terms seem MYSTERIOUS and engender
> frequent explanations and lectures on this
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 10:32:40AM -0700, William Ballard wrote:
> Daily Builds are expected to fail. IDW Builds are about the equivalent
> of Debian's Experimental. IDS Builds are about the equivalent of
> Debian's Unstable: they are shipped to ISVs, most people are expected to
> run them, th
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 01:14:45PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
> In computer-world unstable means: is known to crash too often, or
> something similar. It sounds like it is flaky, buggy crap :).
I worked at Microsoft for 3 years. They build NT Daily. They have:
* Daily Builds
* IDW B
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:59:49 -0600
"Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My understanding of the 'testing' distribution is in conflict with your
> description. Testing is the last to receive security updates, and I
> believe it is more prone to wide-ranging package bugs than is unstab
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:19:39 +0300
Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> sarge -- alternatives to "TESTING":
>
> - desktop
> - user
> - mostly stable
> - freezing
Some of these would actually be dangerous, as they communicate something
about testing which is *
On 14 Apr 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>
[snip]
> My understanding of the 'testing' distribution is in conflict with your
> description. Testing is the last to receive security updates, and I
> believe it is more prone to wide-ranging package bugs than is unstable.
> I see it more as a develo
#x27;t want to
search for backports. You can't fit all that info into a short name.
I run unstable on my desktop machine, stable on my mail server because
I know what the names mean. Education as to what goes in to the various
Debian releases is the key, and changing the release names doe
On 2004-04-14, Gregory Seidman penned:
>
> Hm. Too long for my taste. People aren't going to bother typing
> something that long in IRC. I'd say we want pithy but clear. How about:
>
> stable ---> lowrisk
> testing --> current
> unstable -> earlyaccess
>
> I can see an argument that testing should
Hi All,
> The idea of renaming the releases is coming up not because of marketing,
> or attracting people. It is coming up because the current naming scheme
Hmm. You are right about that. However, I always like to make an analisys
on the 'bigger picture' before I start digging :). I think it is im
Gregory Seidman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
} My suggestions for new names:
}
} Stable --> CURRENT_STABLE
} Testing --> ALMOST_STABLE
} Unstable --> NEW_NOT_PROVEN
[...]
Hm. Too long for my taste. People aren't going to bother typing
something
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
[...]
} I think the first question is of which user you want to attract. A good
} system admin knows what stable/testing/unstable means, but if you want to
} atract John Doe to run Debian as a desktop, we need to think a diff
ogatory forms by "enemy camps" (think "marketing"
> and "spin"). but first, we need to gather all ideas, even ones
> that may seem silly.
>
> comments welcome.
>
>
> =
>
>
> at serensoft part of our service -- after implementing a
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
>> Stable --> CURRENT_STABLE
>> Testing --> ALMOST_STABLE
>> Unstable --> NEW_NOT_PROVEN
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unstable
>
> 1. a) Tending strongly to change: unstable weather.
>b) Not constant; f
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
> Stable --> CURRENT_STABLE
> Testing --> ALMOST_STABLE
> Unstable --> NEW_NOT_PROVEN
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unstable
1. a) Tending strongly to change: unstable weather.
b) Not constant; fluctuating: un
Hi,
Yes, I have some comments :). I myself do not consider unstable to be so
extremely unstable as the name suggests. Naming it DANGEROUS sounds like
over-exegarating it even more being some kind of whoppy system that
crashes every 10 minutes or so. It sounds like it will *hurt* your brand
new shi
ily
warped into derogatory forms by "enemy camps" (think "marketing"
and "spin"). but first, we need to gather all ideas, even ones
that may seem silly.
comments welcome.
=
at serensoft part of our service -- after implementing a
reporting solution, typically -- is that we offe
-> Works as a general view of how Debian releases are organized
- Does not relate to changing statistics such as number of packages
-> Relates to how it works in practice
- Unstable is a random (averagely growing) graph
-> Illustrates how the packages are accepted into Debian and
-
would like to do even more) is bring
> linux to users who havent seen (or even heard about!) linux before.
>
> To present how the different debian releases are related, I'd like to
> visualize with a graph. The graph represents package versi
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 18:32:20 +0100, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> I suspect the following may be a bit clearer:
Hmm... looks like an eight-bit character I used got dropped silently.
Let's try again, now with clean ASCII...
sid---
\
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 18:30:12 +0200, Johan Ehnberg wrote:
> To present how the different debian releases are related, I'd like to
> visualize with a graph. The graph represents package versions (and
> overall functionality):
I suspect the following may be a bit
Hi!
I'd like to share some thoughts with you:
I work with people and computers, and I've come to like debian most of
the linux dists. So what I do (and would like to do even more) is bring
linux to users who havent seen (or even heard about!) linux before.
To present how the differ
Has anyone got IBCS working with a recent Debian release & kernel 2.2.20?
I've got 2.2r5 loaded and need this functionality for Informix databases.
Seems like the deb is lost in space. I'd appreciate any pointers.
Thanks.
Am Die, 2002-02-12 um 11.11 schrieb Chris Halls:
> > Subject: apt-show-versions
> >
> > apt-show-versions is a script which eases maintenance of mixed
> > stable/testing or testing/unstable systems. While beeing able to
> > update the packages from your *main* distribution with apt-get upgrade
>
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:11:31 -0800 (PST)
tluxt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gustavo: A definitive version of this topic should also probably be put
> into the APT HowTo:
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/index.en.html
> You could probably do a whole chapter on pinning & APT::Default-Re
Donald - Thanks! :)I hope you don't mind me forwarding this to Chris and
the list. (If I have correctly interpreted your disposition, I suspect you
don't mind.) He did some interesting tests that IIRC he just sent to
everyone, so IIRC you got a copy from him too. I thought he might find you
On Tuesday 12 Feb 2002 3:11 am, tluxt wrote:
> From the following references section, it seems that the immediately
> following procedure might do this, but I have some concerns:
>
> /etc/apt/apt.conf gets the following line:
> APT::Default-Release "testing";
>
> [Note: On my several mont
I delayed my daily 'fix' of new packages :) to experiment a little with
pinning, Default-Release, apt-get upgrade and apt-show-versions.
I'm posting my interpretation of the findings - please speak up if you know
better!
In summary, it seems that using pinning and Default-Release gives you
differ
--- tluxt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am particularly concerned about ensuring apt-get upgrade works properly,
> and simply - ie,
> not having extra-normal things to do for the person doing the upgrade.
>
>
> From the following
rly?
(The asnwer to that was not clear to me.
The question may have been triggered
by comments from Chris Halls, below.)
That's my main question. What's the answer?
====
[The "Mixing Debian releases the easy way"
On Wednesday 05 December 2001 09:51 am, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> Possibly, if the bugs are deemed important enough (i.e. release
> critical).
One would hope that's the case with PHP.
> Plenty of pre-release software has made it in to stable Debian releases.
> Just look at mozil
with PHP, new RC
> versions can be added as needed.
>
> Please let me know if that's an incorrect assumption.
Possibly, if the bugs are deemed important enough (i.e. release
critical).
Plenty of pre-release software has made it in to stable Debian releases.
Just look at mozilla in
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:01:58PM -0800, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> I did an apt-get upgrade the other day on one of my woody boxes and was
> surprised to see that PHP has been upgraded to 4.1.0RC2.
>
> Is it normal behavior to include beta software in testing?
Yes.
> What happens if Woody gets froz
Subject: beta software in debian releases?
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:01:58 -0800
From: Kurt Lieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
I did an apt-get upgrade the other day on one of my woody boxes and was
surprised to see that PHP has been upgraded to 4.1.0RC2.
Is it norma
I did an apt-get upgrade the other day on one of my woody boxes and was
surprised to see that PHP has been upgraded to 4.1.0RC2.
Is it normal behavior to include beta software in testing? What happens if
Woody gets frozen before 4.1.0 is released? Will Woody then be stuck with an
RC version o
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 12:17:59 -0400
From: Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As for "1.3.3", as V.P.Engineering, I've authorized _nothing_ since
the release of 1.3.1. What is in bo-updates are just candidates
for the next release that the testing group has to approve.
Prehaps I w
> > And choosing a simple, consistent, and comprehensible release naming scheme
> > is such an issue. Hambone, bopeep, 1.3.1, and now revision 2... all
> > very confusing. I've been trying to convince the people in the seul
> > project to use Debian: they think Debian is flaky. I like Debian.
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
