reason I ask
is: [Rosenstrauch, David]
Debian stable is considered the most secure. A
distro isn't promoted from testing to stable until it's been thoroughly
tested. (See http://www.debian.org/releases/)
- Apache 1.3.26 seems ancient -- is this an OK version to run? I hav
> -Original Message-
> From: Dhiraj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 3:43 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Installing Debian on second hard disk
>
>
> Hello,
> Thanks for your reply. I now see some possibility that it
> might work.
> However, for
salt anyway.
You are running "unstable", after all. :-)
DR
> -----Original Message-
> From: Rosenstrauch, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: .deb dependancy hell
>
>
> Whoops - my apo
Whoops - my apologies, then. I didn't read your message carefully enough.
DR
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Hoskins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: .deb dependancy hell
>
&g
> If package A needs package B, and package B needs package A, why in
> the world are they two separate packages?
There's rarely (if ever) a circular dependency like that. What you'll
normally see is that package A needs package B, and package C needs package B.
Thus package B is usually a s
> If I add entries like (hd1,0) and (hd1,1), will the
> grub on my first disk be able to boot the win2K and Debian on
> the second
> HDD. I don't mind if it won't boot win2K but will atleast
> Debian 3.0r2
> boot ?
Short answer: yes. Grub on the first disk should be able to boot either of
t
Hi all. Perhaps someone can help with a problem I've been having.
Been in the process of getting a new box configged (Debian stable), and
everything had been going fine. Had been using Firestarter to config the
box's firewall, but wasn't completely pleased with it. So I decided to give
gnome-lo
7 matches
Mail list logo
