on Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:39:05PM +0000, Colin Watson insinuated:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 04:51:43PM -0500, Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> > on Fri, 07 Feb 2003 05:08:18PM +0000, Colin Watson insinuated:
> > > Yes, you'd have to build it and libgphoto2 from source. I think
> > > you could safely try whatever version's in the tree you're
> > > using, though - I don't know a lot about gphoto2, really, but I
> > > don't get the impression that A40 support is bleeding-edge.
> >
> > do what? build what from source? all i did to get the latest
> > gphoto to was:
> >
> > orange:~# apt-get install --reinstall gphoto2 -t sid
> >
> > all dependencies automatically resolved ...
>
> I think installing packages from unstable while running an older
> release is typically a very bad idea. You're pulling in a new glibc,
> so you get 90% of the instability that presumably you're trying to
> avoid by running the older release, and you don't even have the
> benefit of most of the newer software. Plus it's not such a
> well-tested configuration.
>
> As a result, I don't use this approach, and never recommend it
> unless I know that the package in unstable has no dependencies
> outside whatever the person I'm talking to is running.
cool, that's a good rationale. i keep meaning to run stable, but then
upgrading to testing/unstable by just the above method ... there are
enough things i want from later releases that it's worth it to me.
but you have a point.
> Building from source is not usually too hard nowadays, and in the
> cases where it is somebody has usually done the hard work of
> backporting already.
well, good point. :)
</nori>
--
.~. nori @ sccs.swarthmore.edu
/V\ http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/~nori/jnl/
// \\ @ maenad.net
/( )\ www.maenad.net
^`~'^
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
