I've edited your message when quoting it in order to meet my agenda.
On 28 Oct 2009, at 00:28, James wrote:
PS, if one of you really smart guys figures out mass/parallel
upgrades, then I'd use that, even set up my own server
to keep it efficient. I'm not smart enough (not enough time
at cur
On Wednesday 28 October 2009 02:28:43 James wrote:
> PS, if one of you really smart guys figures out mass/parallel
> upgrades, then I'd use that, even set up my own server
> to keep it efficient. I'm not smart enough (not enough time
> at current mental aptitude) to set all of that up, unless
> so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James wrote:
> kde-meta is ideal for me. I thought it was going away?
> Since kde(4)-meta is alive and well, that is my preferred
> method. I hope when kde-meta goes away (?) there is a migration
> plan? When this whole kde4 venture started for me (feb
Frank Steinmetzger gmx.de> writes:
> > aka how-to-update-many-machines-in-parallel
> Another possibility would be to compile on one machine and then distribute
> the
> binary packages using --buildpkg and --usepkg. That would only work of course
> if the hardware is identical and/or CFLAGS a
Alan McKinnon gmail.com> writes:
> 4.3.2 seems to work fine for most folk. These days it's X causing grief, not
> KDE...
OK, so I keep the system locked down on X (that it is using) and just
deal with kde4 for now.
> Pick the primary workstation and get that one right, either using sets you
5 matches
Mail list logo
