Billy Biggs wrote:
> > [...] Lot of new HW has a better chance to be (better) supported on
> > newer system (are new kernels available for stable?)
>
> Of particular interest to desktop users is XFree86's video card
> drivers.
Or, increasingly, GE NIC support.
(For X support, current unstable
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:35:13PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
| On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:53:36AM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
| > It would be helpful if Debian could even be installed on machines newer
| > than about 2 years old.
|
| It would be helpful if people wouldn't make sweeping generalizati
I demand that Greg Stark may or may not have written...
> Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> BTW, no need to Cc: me - or did Gnus not notice the Mail-Followup-To
>> header?
> Uhm. What Mail-Followup-To header? I didn't receive one on this message,
> perhaps it's stripped by the mail serve
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 01:51:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It would be helpful if people wouldn't make sweeping generalizations all
> > the time.
>
> /me hands Josip an Excellence in Un-self-conscious Irony Award
I was merely responding to a sentence written with the same beginning, bu
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 11:59:26PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> > > > It would be helpful if people wouldn't make sweeping generalizations
> > > > all the time.
>
> "All the time"? ...
Someone has been saying that every once in a while for the last N years.
--
2. That which causes joy or ha
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:35:13PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> It would be helpful if people wouldn't make sweeping generalizations all the
> time.
/me hands Josip an Excellence in Un-self-conscious Irony Award
--
G. Branden Robinson|A committee is a life form with six
Debian
On 06 Nov 2003 01:06:25 -0500, Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to
debian-devel:
> Personally I'm of the opinion that stable is useless. It certainly
> has no use for me. Perhaps if I ran a production server on debian I
> might think otherwise but I rather doubt it. When I had production
>
Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Regardless. Having people install fresh machines with things like
> > Postgres 7.2 is just embarrassing.
>
> I am not embarrassed.
Well perhaps you should be. Whenever they ask for support those users will be
told the version their running is hopele
> > Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > It would be helpful if people wouldn't make sweeping generalizations
> > > all the time.
"All the time"? ...
--
greg
Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, no need to Cc: me - or did Gnus not notice the Mail-Followup-To header?
Uhm. What Mail-Followup-To header? I didn't receive one on this message,
perhaps it's stripped by the mail server? Or perhaps you're mistaken about it
being included?
I've atta
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:56:37AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:53:36AM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > > It would be helpful if Debian could even be installed on machines newer
> > > than about 2 years old.
> >
> > It would be he
I demand that Matt Zimmerman may or may not have written...
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:20:18PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
>> I keep some around. I'd prefer better management of this, though: ATM all
>> that I can do (with apt-get/aptitude) is remove all older versions or
>> purge the cache.
> I
I demand that Greg Stark may or may not have written...
> Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I demand that Greg Stark may or may not have written...
> What does that mean?
It's (more or less) from The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The bit in
question concerns two philosophers who ar
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:20:18PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> I keep some around. I'd prefer better management of this, though: ATM all
> that I can do (with apt-get/aptitude) is remove all older versions or
> purge the cache.
I use a dead simple cron.daily script which prunes packages with an a
Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If apt kept even a single old revision in its cache then rolling back could
> > be as simple as
> > apt-get install -t previous libc6
>
> That would be good. (Similarly for aptitude, of course.)
>
> One question occurs, however: should this also (tr
Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I demand that Greg Stark may or may not have written...
What does that mean?
--
greg
I demand that Greg Stark may or may not have written...
[snip - package rollback?]
> all it would take to make the tools handle this would be to somehow make
> apt aware of more revisions of packages. They're all in the pool after all.
> Short of making some king of humongous mega-Packages file wi
On 4 Nov 2003, Greg Stark wrote:
> So all it would take to make the tools handle this would be to somehow make
> apt aware of more revisions of packages. They're all in the pool after all.
> Short of making some king of humongous mega-Packages file with every revision
> of every package -- which a
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:12:38PM +, Steve Kemp wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:05:56PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> > All he had to do was install an older version of libc6 and every other
> > package
> > would have been happy. All the infrastructure is there to do this, the old
> > pac
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 06:48:09AM +, Magos?nyi ?rp?d wrote:
> I guess having kernel-image-vanilla and/or
> kernel-image-onlybugfix in debian would not hurt.
Or kernel-image-hx ... what caught me out was believing
kernel-image-2.4.xx or whatever was relatively pristine. However naive
that make
On 03-Nov-03, 16:22 (CST), Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, not this crap again. Or perhaps you're contending that what is
> usefull for you is usefull for everybody.
No, I didn't, My point was to object to YOUR contention that anything
over 3 months old is "Useless". Woody Emacs w
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:01:10PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> Hm, it appears to be true that not every single revision is here. But there
> are certainly more than just the unstable and testing revisions too:
>
> libc6_2.2.5-11.2_i386.deb 26-Sep-2002 11:32 3.2M
stable
> libc6
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:11:43AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Suggested project: Create a package that, a-l-apt-move, pulls packages
> out of the apt cache and creates apt repositories from them. But make it
> create a new repository after every upgrade, by hooking into apt. And
> auto-add these re
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 05:53:04PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:22:10AM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> | I refuse to use nvidia products, but I somehow doubt that boards based
> | on their nforce2 chipset work properly either.
>
> I have a machine using the nforce2 chip
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:47:30AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> So all it would take to make the tools handle this would be to somehow
> make apt aware of more revisions of packages. They're all in the pool
> after all. Short of making some king of humongous mega-Packages file with
> every revision
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:56:37AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> > > It would be helpful if Debian could even be installed on machines newer
> > > than about 2 years old.
> >
> > It would be helpful if people wouldn't make sweeping generalizations all the
> > time. Only a part of the new machines are
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Er no they are not all in the pool. The only packages in the pool are
> the current versions for stable/testing/unstable/experimental. There are
> also the few packages that haven't been completely compiled on all archs
> yet and so are still left in arc
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:53:36AM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > It would be helpful if Debian could even be installed on machines newer
> > than about 2 years old.
>
> It would be helpful if people wouldn't make sweeping generalizations all the
> time.
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:53:36AM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> It would be helpful if Debian could even be installed on machines newer
> than about 2 years old.
It would be helpful if people wouldn't make sweeping generalizations all the
time. Only a part of the new machines are made with hardwar
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:22:10AM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Intel
> -
> i845 10 Sept 2001
> i875 14 Apr 2003
> i865 21 May 2003
The last two don't have AGP support before 2.4.23-preX (not sure if X
is 1 or not), and the on-board network cards which many of the the
motherboards b
on Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 04:57:34PM -0500, Greg Stark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> "Julian Mehnle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > First, I think what Daniel Jacobowitz said is entirely true. Why didn't you
> > start with "testing"?
>
> Sure testing is less likely to trigger this.
Frankly,
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:47:30AM -0500, Greg Stark said
> or perhaps a little less automatic,
>
> apt-cache show libc6
>
> to list the available revisions then explicitly
>
> apt-get install libc6:2.3.2-8
With a s/:/=/ and a sources.list line pointing at sid, say, two days ago
on http://snaps
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:18:00 +
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:54:25PM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:04:11 +
> > Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Er, doesn't apt-get install libc6=2.3.2-8 do exactly this?
> >
> > No
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:54:25PM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:04:11 +
> Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Er, doesn't apt-get install libc6=2.3.2-8 do exactly this?
>
> No because of a conflict with (file own by) libdb1-compat.
Uh, 2.3.2-8 is well after the
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:04:11 +
Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Er, doesn't apt-get install libc6=2.3.2-8 do exactly this?
No because of a conflict with (file own by) libdb1-compat.
Well, it was the problem I faced.
Best regards,
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
: :' :
On Nov 04, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:53:36AM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
>> It would be helpful if Debian could even be installed on machines newer
>> than about 2 years old. Neither my KT400 based machine nor my i875P
>> based machine could be insta
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Regardless updating boot-floppies when new kernels come out would be a
> good idea so that newbies with recent machines can still use Debian.
Iirc Eduard Bloch (blade) provides inofficial updated boot-floppies on
people.debian.org.
cu a
On Tuesday 04 Nov 2003 05:47, Greg Stark wrote:
> to list the available revisions then explicitly
>
> apt-get install libc6:2.3.2-8
>
> Actually this wouldn't really have helped my friend at all because he was
> unlucky enough that the *first* version of libc6 from unstable that he saw
> happened
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:22:10AM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
| I refuse to use nvidia products, but I somehow doubt that boards based
| on their nforce2 chipset work properly either.
I have a machine using the nforce2 chipset and the Woody installer
doesn't recognise its IDE controller. (Proper
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 08:17:06AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I challenge the assertion that this affects a large portion of users.
>
> In the past few months, I've installed woody on roughly 30-40
> different types of box, all aged 0-3 years, and only one was
> unsupported by woody (and that
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:47:30AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> So all it would take to make the tools handle this would be to somehow make
> apt aware of more revisions of packages. They're all in the pool after all.
> Short of making some king of humongous mega-Packages file with every revision
> o
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:05:56PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> I finally convinced a sysadmin friend of mine that Debian was the way and the
> light.
Ah, there's your mistake.
Don't do that. Anybody who uses Debian as a result of this sort of
evangelism is going to have a similar experience, so it
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:53:36AM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> It would be helpful if Debian could even be installed on machines newer
> than about 2 years old. Neither my KT400 based machine nor my i875P
> based machine could be installed using the standard Debian
> boot-floppies. I had to resort
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:43:29PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 03-Nov-03, 14:21 (CST), Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > is even worse than unstable>
>
> Oh, not this crap again. Or perhaps you're contending that I've not
> gotten anything done at work in the last two years usi
A levelezőm azt hiszi, hogy [EMAIL PROTECTED] a következőeket írta:
> > > but I wouldn't touch Herbert's kernels with a ten-feet pole.
[]
> a) I can do better
Please do then.
I guess having kernel-image-vanilla and/or
kernel-image-onlybugfix in debian would not hurt.
> b) I don't do
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I finally convinced a sysadmin friend of mine that Debian was the way and the
> light. He started a new job and showed up on his first day to set up his
> machine by installing Debian. In short, things went horribly wrong and he
> started this new job by wa
Greg Stark wrote:
> The only interface for rolling back is switching the entire machine to an
> earlier distribution and telling apt to try to downgrade -- which is unlikely
> to work. And worse, every time you run apt it only downloads and unpacks
> *more* packages, all of which, of course, fail a
Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>
>First, I think what Daniel Jacobowitz said is entirely true. Why didn't you
>start with "testing"?
>
>> All he had to do was install an older version of libc6 and every other
>> package would have been hap
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:05:56PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> > What started the chain of events was that a fairly routine minor bug bit the
> > latest libc6 release. He's an experienced sysadmin though and wasn't the
> > least
>
> What (probably; I am gu
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:48:25PM +1100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-11-03 22:52]:
> > but I wouldn't touch Herbert's kernels with a ten-feet pole.
>
> Can you elaborate why?
a) I can do better
b) I don't do huge monolitic patches
c) I don't like
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-11-03 22:52]:
> but I wouldn't touch Herbert's kernels with a ten-feet pole.
Can you elaborate why?
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:05:56PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> What started the chain of events was that a fairly routine minor bug bit the
> latest libc6 release. He's an experienced sysadmin though and wasn't the least
What (probably; I am guessing a bit) continued the chain of events:
- no prio
A levelezőm azt hiszi, hogy Daniel Jacobowitz a következőeket írta:
>
> what they get>
>
> No, really. This is what stable and testing releases are for.
I fully agree. But...
When I tell it to my friends, some say that stable is way too
old for them. In these cases I used to think about how t
Erik Steffl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> [...] Lot of new HW has a better chance to be (better) supported on
> newer system (are new kernels available for stable?)
Of particular interest to desktop users is XFree86's video card
drivers.
-Billy
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:22:00PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
> Oh, not this crap again. Or perhaps you're contending that what is
> usefull for you is usefull for everybody.
>
> Hint: there's more to "useful" than old version of software in early
> stages of development. Lot of desktop orien
Steve Greenland wrote:
On 03-Nov-03, 14:21 (CST), Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh, not this crap again. Or perhaps you're contending that I've not
gotten anything done at work in the last two years using my "useless"
Debian stable desktop.
Hint: there's more to "useful" than running t
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 04:57:34PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> All I want to do is give up on this new version and go to an earlier version,
> most likely the version I had installed five minutes ago. Downgrading to
> testing would probably require a whole new set of libraries and more work.
I keep
On 03-Nov-03, 14:21 (CST), Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is even worse than unstable>
Oh, not this crap again. Or perhaps you're contending that I've not
gotten anything done at work in the last two years using my "useless"
Debian stable desktop.
Hint: there's more to "useful" than r
"Julian Mehnle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First, I think what Daniel Jacobowitz said is entirely true. Why didn't you
> start with "testing"?
Sure testing is less likely to trigger this.
But testing isn't infallible either. And it shouldn't be mean Debian shouldn't
have better error handli
On 03 Nov 2003 15:05:56 -0500, Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What started the chain of events was that a fairly routine minor bug bit the
>latest libc6 release. He's an experienced sysadmin though and wasn't the least
>bit fazed by that. What drove him batty was that it was so hard to reco
On 03 Nov 2003 15:05:56 -0500
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I finally convinced a sysadmin friend of mine that Debian was the way
> and the light.
Great, you are rigth!
[...]
> What started the chain of events was that a fairly routine minor bug
> bit the latest libc6 release. He's an
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:05:56PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
...
What would be really neat would be if aptitude or perhaps even apt checked for
earlier versions of the package in the pool and offered them as options if the
current one fails to configure.
No, really. This
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
First, I think what Daniel Jacobowitz said is entirely true. Why didn't you
start with "testing"?
> All he had to do was install an older version of libc6 and every other
> package would have been happy. All the infrastructure is there to do
> this,
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:05:56PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> All he had to do was install an older version of libc6 and every other package
> would have been happy. All the infrastructure is there to do this, the old
> packages are all on the ftp/http sites, the package may even be sitting in
> a
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:05:56PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> I finally convinced a sysadmin friend of mine that Debian was the way and the
> light. He started a new job and showed up on his first day to set up his
> machine by installing Debian. In short, things went horribly wrong and he
> sta
I finally convinced a sysadmin friend of mine that Debian was the way and the
light. He started a new job and showed up on his first day to set up his
machine by installing Debian. In short, things went horribly wrong and he
started this new job by wasting two days picking up the pieces. He's now
66 matches
Mail list logo
