Re: Problem with apt on slink systems
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# grep "^[^#]" /etc/apt/sources.list [snip] > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# apt-get install zsh [snip] > Where the heck the word 'stable' comes from? I removed my hole > /var/state/apt/ and I do not know where it comes from. Hardcoded anywhere > perhaps? Or did I miss something grave? Did you 'apt-get update'? I'm not an apt-get internals expert but perhaps it cached the 'real' paths to the ftp/http locations instead of the symlinked ones so they are now all out of whack. Which makes me think - is it still possible to apt-get a slink update now it's fallen off the stable/frozen/unstable chain? Dave
Re: How about using bzip2 as the standard *.deb compression format?
On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Christopher Barry wrote: >Hi, > >I read in an earlier mail that the main distro will no longer fit on one >CD. Since a standardised specialized tool is already required to install >a *.deb and this tool is installed on every Debian box, why not in the >next update of dpkg include support to decompress bzip2 compressed >*.debs? This would be transparent for the user, and (as far as I can >reason anyways) fairly painless for the developer. > I think we already went through this discussion a short while back. Unless I'm missing something new, it was pretty much decided that the memory overhead of bzip2 was too great for low-mem or slow PCs to handle. That said, please correct me if I got the wrong end of the stick. - dave -- | oOOooO / --|oOobodoO/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] --| ooOoOo / | II / "Rocky Road," croaked the toad. | II /
Re: How about using bzip2 as the standard *.deb compression format?
On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Joseph Carter wrote: >> (I said) >> I think we already went through this discussion a short while back. >> Unless I'm missing something new, it was pretty much decided that the >> memory overhead of bzip2 was too great for low-mem or slow PCs to handle. >> > >It'd STILL be nice to be able to use bzip2 for package source on REALLY BIG >packages (Mozilla, X) > very good point! those users with slow / low mem machines are less likely to be installing these packages anyway! Perhaps we could compromise by saying that anyone running these on a slow machine will be patient anyway and can deal with the extra slowness and disk thrashing of using bzip2? - dave -- | oOOooO / --|oOobodoO/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] --| ooOoOo / | II / "Rocky Road," croaked the toad. | II /
Re: Intent to package: Debian-Bookmarks
On 5 Oct 1998, Frederic Lepied wrote: >CH> /usr/bin/bookmarks-convert >CH>Converts html pages to bookmarks for several browsers like >CH>netscape, lynx, > >CH> /usr/share/debian-bookmarks/debian-bookmarks.html > >Why don't you put it under the web hierarchy (/var/www) ? This way, it >would be available to all browsers through a server or directly from >the local file system. I had something in mind more like a dummy user, named 'bookmark'. that way it could be reached through any(?) web server by hitting http://localhost/~bookmark perhaps a symlink into somewhere else might make it easier to reach via a file:// URL. as for which of netscape, lynx or whoever, my vote is 100% for ALL OF THEM. What I mean by this is to have a script to convert whatever data source we create into a series of flat text files which would be placed into the above /home/bookmark/public_html to be viewed in the browser. A question arises of whether to have one large file, or a hierarchical system (or both). - dave -- | oOOooO / --|oOobodoO/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] --| ooOoOo / | II / "Rocky Road," croaked the toad. | II /
