On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 08:07:25PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Why don't you just use 'stable' if you need a stable distribution. You
> can always manually install individual packages from 'testing' if you
Don't think that works as cleanly as you think due to dependencies not
in stable.
On Sunday 13 November 2005 02:49, loos wrote:
> Em Sáb, 2005-11-12 às 14:47 +0100, Christof Hurschler escreveu:
> > On Saturday 12 November 2005 01:21, Johan Kullstam wrote:
> > > Exactly. I was using "testing" for a while and got tired of losing
> > > when a package broke and wouldn't get fixed f
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 11:37:49PM -0700, Scott wrote:
_please_ trim your quotes. :)
--
Jon Dowland
http://jon.dowland.name/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Em Sáb, 2005-11-12 às 14:47 +0100, Christof Hurschler escreveu:
> On Saturday 12 November 2005 01:21, Johan Kullstam wrote:
> > Exactly. I was using "testing" for a while and got tired of losing
> > when a package broke and wouldn't get fixed for ages.
> >
> > Of course, a savvy user could default
On Saturday 12 November 2005 01:21, Johan Kullstam wrote:
> loos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip rant against "testing"]
>
> > I just totally agree with you. A little difference, I switch my
> > production machines (stable) to testing somewhere during the "frozen"
> > time (of course using te
loos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip rant against "testing"]
> I just totally agree with you. A little difference, I switch my
> production machines (stable) to testing somewhere during the "frozen"
> time (of course using testing real name. I prefer having a manual
> control on the oldstable->
> All this is IMHO. Warning rant ahead:
>
> 1) testing not for users. It is for debian maintainers putting the
>next stable release together.
>
>There is a mechanical aging process which lets packages come over
>from sid. A package could get updated, wait, and just when it's
>a
Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mitch Wiedemann wrote:
> > Joona Kiiski wrote:
> >
> >>Hi!
> >>
> >>Now for about two weeks there have been many packages out of testing.
> >>I'm must wondering what's the point? Those missing packages prevent me
> >>from upgrading because there are many among t
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 11:37:49PM -0700, Scott wrote:
> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >>
> >Please do a quick Google search. This topic has been rehashed many many
> >many many (did I mention many?) times over the past few years.
> >-Roberto
>
> Actually it hasn't been "over the past few years".
Mitch Wiedemann wrote:
Joona Kiiski wrote:
Hi!
Now for about two weeks there have been many packages out of testing.
I'm must wondering what's the point? Those missing packages prevent me
from upgrading because there are many among those which I desperatily
need and I don't want to start hack
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 08:17:44PM +0200, Joona Kiiski wrote:
Hi!
Now for about two weeks there have been many packages out of testing. I'm
must wondering what's the point? Those missing packages prevent me from
upgrading because there are many among those which I des
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 01:01:49AM +0200, Joona Kiiski wrote:
> > Certainly not. If you want unstable packages, then use *unstable*. If
> > you want to help test the next Debian release, then use *testing*. If
> > you want something that will always work, then use *stable*.
>
> Yes, I've tried
On 01:01 Fri 11 Nov , Joona Kiiski wrote:
> > Certainly not. If you want unstable packages, then use *unstable*. If
> > you want to help test the next Debian release, then use *testing*. If
> > you want something that will always work, then use *stable*.
>
> Yes, I've tried them all.
> * Un
> Certainly not. If you want unstable packages, then use *unstable*. If
> you want to help test the next Debian release, then use *testing*. If
> you want something that will always work, then use *stable*.
Yes, I've tried them all.
* Unstable was a bit too unstable for my taste.
* Stable is fi
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 08:17:44PM +0200, Joona Kiiski wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Now for about two weeks there have been many packages out of testing. I'm
> must wondering what's the point? Those missing packages prevent me from
> upgrading because there are many among those which I desperatily need and I
Joona Kiiski wrote:
Hi!
Now for about two weeks there have been many packages out of testing. I'm
must wondering what's the point? Those missing packages prevent me from
upgrading because there are many among those which I desperatily need and I
don't want to start hacking apt. Wouldn't it be be
Joona Kiiski wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Now for about two weeks there have been many packages out of testing.
> I'm must wondering what's the point? Those missing packages prevent me
> from upgrading because there are many among those which I desperatily
> need and I don't want to start hacking apt. Wouldn'
Hi!
Now for about two weeks there have been many packages out of testing.
I'm must wondering what's the point? Those missing packages prevent me
from upgrading because there are many among those which I desperatily
need and I don't want to start hacking apt. Wouldn't it be better to
have an unstab
18 matches
Mail list logo
