True, compared to other operating system upgrades this is not that bad. And no, I don't know if Slashdot reports the upgrade results of other Linux distributions or other operating systems. It just seems to me that this release was not up to Debian standards. I did not experience anything like this when I upgraded from potato to woody.
And that xserver-rage128 is not third party. It may be from a 2.1 version but this box is all Debian. Maybe legacy Debain but Debian never-the-less and nothing else. Brian On 6/13/05, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian Kimsey-Hickman wrote: > > I have mistakenly trusted the Debian community and upgraded to Sarge > > and it is a DISASTER. > > > > HOW COULD YOU HAVE DONE THIS TO US ! ! ! > > > > (Reading database ... 70119 files and directories currently installed.) > > Removing xserver-rage128 ... > > sed: can't read /etc/X11/Xserver: No such file or directory > > dpkg: error processing xserver-rage128 (--remove): > > How could we have not ever shipped a package named "xserver-rage128" but > yet somehow enticed you to install some broken third-party package by that > name onto your system, thus hosing your sarge upgrade? I really can't > say. > > > Slashdot has written how 30% of Sarge upgrades are failing. > > > > THIS IS INEXCUSABLE ! ! ! > > Has slashdot given any (similarly misquoted; I read the original post > and that is not what it said; besides it was clearly an off-the-cuff > estimate) statistics for upgrades for Debian woody, or any other version > of linux? > > -- > see shy jo > > > BodyID:31584840.2.n.logpart (stored separately) > >
