On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:06:30PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Michael D Schleif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004:03:18:20:05:40-0800] scribed:
> >> Your best bet if you don't want to reinstall is watch closely after
> >> sarge goes stable for a new unstable
Michael D Schleif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004:03:18:20:05:40-0800] scribed:
>
>
>> Not particularly. I've never downgraded libc successfully on a
>> machine across major version changes without having to reinstall.
>> Your best bet if you don't want to
* Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004:03:18:22:58:47-0800] scribed:
> My opinion is that testing should not be publicly available until it is
> in the "release candidate" or "beta" stage, or whatever you want to call
> it. Up until that point, it should be a virtual distribution only
> existi
* Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004:03:18:20:05:40-0800] scribed:
> Not particularly. I've never downgraded libc successfully on a
> machine across major version changes without having to reinstall.
> Your best bet if you don't want to reinstall is watch closely after
> sarge goes stable fo
>> If I understand this correctly, users of 'testing' (currently
>> 'sarge') can do *nothing* when new security problems arise? They
>> must wait for the fix in 'unstable' to make it into testing.
pj> You knew going in that the only "safe" path is stable, you were
pj> warned!
Certainly
Kenneth Jacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> myh> On 2004-03-19, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> myh>
> myh> Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for
> myh> stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using
> myh> testing distributions must wait the allotted amo
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:32:59AM -0400, Kenneth Jacker wrote:
> myh> On 2004-03-19, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> myh> Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for
> myh> stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using
> myh> testing distributions must wait the a
myh> On 2004-03-19, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
myh>
myh> Also, look at security updates. Updates are provided for
myh> stable and unstable almost immediately. Then those using
myh> testing distributions must wait the allotted amount of time
myh> before receiving the unstable upd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 19 March 2004 18:17, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> I wasn't claiming that unstable is a better choice than stable for, er,
> stability; I was claiming it was a better choice than testing.
I understood you, but I asked the original question. I
On 2004-03-19, Travis Crump penned:
>
> Unstable, on the other hand, breaks much more spectacularly on package
> installation with no warning other than people moaning on the
> lists/IRC/BTS. I don't want to imply that this is a frequent
> occurence, but it does happen...
I've only been bitten in
On 2004-03-19, Paul Johnson penned:
>
> "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
>> Unstable is where bug fixes, new packages, etc are first introduced
>> into a debian distribution. (There's also something called
>> "experimental," but that's not a proper distribution.)
>
> The im
Hello Kevin!
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 07:44:46AM -0500, Kevin Coyner wrote:
> Presently these two lines accomplish the same thing:
>
> deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib
>
> deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ sarge main non-free contrib
>
> Once Sarge releases
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 03:31:38PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote..
> However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing works
> well right now since we're near a release and almost everything in
> there is in a releasable state, but after sarge releases, watch out.
Presently thes
Travis Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 18 March 2004 21:35, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > I'm not sure that "less stable" is the right term, but "less usable"
>> > almost certainly is.
>>
>> backports.org is your friend.
>
> Here's a
"Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Say you have package A that makes it past unstable and into testing.
> Then someone finds a bug in package A. It turns out to be an icky bug,
> and it takes quite a while to fix it. The bug will be fixed in unstable
> before trickling down into t
Michael Satterwhite wrote:
On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote:
However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing works
well right now since we're near a release and almost everything in there
is in a releasable state, but after sarge releases, watch out.
I'm sure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Travis Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 18 March 2004 21:35, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > I'm not sure that "less stable" is the right term, but "less usable"
>> > almost certainly is.
>>
On Thursday 18 March 2004 21:35, Paul Johnson wrote:
> "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm not sure that "less stable" is the right term, but "less usable"
> > almost certainly is.
>
> backports.org is your friend.
Here's a question for the more experienced folks: is "downgra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-03-19, Michael Satterwhite penned:
>>
>> On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote:
>>>
>>> However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing
>>> works well right now s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 18 March 2004 18:35, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> Say you have package A that makes it past unstable and into testing.
> Then someone finds a bug in package A. It turns out to be an icky bug,
> and it takes quite a while to fix it. The bug
On 2004-03-19, Michael Satterwhite penned:
>
> On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote:
>>
>> However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing
>> works well right now since we're near a release and almost everything
>> in there is in a releasable state, but after sarge r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Michael Satterwhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> >> What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine? The
> >> test
Michael Satterwhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>> What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine? The
>> testing distro is a little odd in that it's really intended for
>> developers, not users. It's "the stuff they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:03, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> > I do development on the machine running Sarge. The package list in the
> > stable list gets a bit dated for me. They, however, are perfect for
> > the machine that *HAS* to be up and stable.
On 2004-03-18, Michael Satterwhite penned:
>
> On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>> What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine?
>> The testing distro is a little odd in that it's really intended for
>> developers, not users. It's "the stuff they're w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine? The
> testing distro is a little odd in that it's really intended for
> developers, not users. It's "the stuff they're wor
"Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sometime after that, I'll want to upgrade from Woody to Sarge on my
>> base machine; a few months after that, I'll consider moving my test
>> machine to Sid.
>
> I'm no expert, but I think this is not quite right.
>
> At the moment, Woody = stable
On 2004-03-18, Michael Satterwhite penned:
>
> I've been Distro hopping for the last few weeks and am very impressed
> with the Debian system. It's probably going to become the distro on
> all my machines very shortly.
>
> I'm going to be running Woody on one machine and Sarge on another for
> test
Michael Satterwhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the procedure for this type of an upgrade? IOW, what
> commands would be given to apt to move the machine to the next
> version?
Had you searched the archives, you would not have had to wait for me
to tell you to update your sources.list t
29 matches
Mail list logo
