On Lu, 02 iul 12, 23:15:33, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> So you need to keep physically checking (maybe apt-cache policy) when a
> new backport is available?
aptitude search ~N
will list any new packages (works for new kernels, since they have a
different package name)
aptitude search ~
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 08:38:33 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 02:04:52PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:38:02 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 05:34:19PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:09:49 -0600, Paul E C
Am 03.07.2012 um 23:02 schrieb Chris Bannister:
[...]
Add backports to your sources, update, then spend some time comparing
your favourite packages, see answer to 2+3. Remember a package may be
backported at anytime, so you may need to check more than once.
apticron with mail-notification?
On 20120704_090212, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 12:17:39PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> >
> > Let me join in the discussion of what I intended by my badly
> > worded request:
> >
> > 1. I need a way of learning the name of the package that might help
> > with some problem, a
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 12:17:39PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
...snip..
>
> Let me join in the discussion of what I intended by my badly
> worded request:
>
> 1. I need a way of learning the name of the package that might help
> with some problem, a place on the web where I can
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 12:17:39PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
>
> Let me join in the discussion of what I intended by my badly
> worded request:
>
> 1. I need a way of learning the name of the package that might help
> with some problem, a place on the web where I can pick up search terms
> on a
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 02:04:52PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:38:02 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 05:34:19PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> >> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:09:49 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> >> > but how does one know of the existance of a ba
On 07/01/2012 05:15 PM, Mark Panen wrote:
Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05 system?
I had Backports enabled on my Squeeze desktop system for quite some
time. I'd say only use Backports if you need it.
In my case, I had audio problems with the 2.6.32 kernel that we
On 20120703_103802, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 05:34:19PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:09:49 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> > > but how does one know of the existance of a backported package.
> >
> > As usual, you go to the online search and type the name
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:38:02 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 05:34:19PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:09:49 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
>> > but how does one know of the existance of a backported package.
>>
>> As usual, you go to the online search and t
On Monday 02 July 2012 16:09:03 Robert Holtzm wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 12:48:36PM -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> > On Monday 02 July 2012 03:46:30 Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> > > Remember that you are enabling Backports with your own risk in case
> > > you decide to enable them.
> >
> > I sec
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 05:34:19PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:09:49 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> > but how does one know of the existance of a backported package.
>
> As usual, you go to the online search and type the name of the package.
> If there's a backport counterpart
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 12:48:36PM -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> On Monday 02 July 2012 03:46:30 Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> >
> > Remember that you are enabling Backports with your own risk in case
> > you decide to enable them.
>
> I second that. Especially when trying to install newer kernels fr
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:09:49 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> On 20120702_144837, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:15:42 +0200, Mark Panen wrote:
>>
>> > Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05 system?
>>
>> I'd say now is even safer than before because the backported
On Monday 02 July 2012 03:46:30 Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02.07.2012 03:15, Mark Panen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05
> > system?
>
> I have them enabled on stable Squeeze system and I know some other
> people too and we haven't ex
On 20120702_144837, Camaleón wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:15:42 +0200, Mark Panen wrote:
>
> > Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05 system?
>
> I'd say now is even safer than before because the backported packages are
> integrated within the official repositories whic
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:15:42 +0200, Mark Panen wrote:
> Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05 system?
I'd say now is even safer than before because the backported packages are
integrated within the official repositories which should lead to less
packages/libraries collis
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 11:15:33PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 08:10:07AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > Shouldn't be necessary, the backports versioning is specifically
> > designed so that the version in testing is higher (the magic of ~)
>
> http://www.debian.org/
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 08:10:07AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 02 iul 12, 15:46:40, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > I think there is an issue regarding security updates. Also I think you
> > need appropriate pinning, maybe wrong though.
>
> Would you care to elaborate on this? The default pi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02.07.2012 10:47, debian-user@lists.debian.org wrote:
> __ Type your response ABOVE THIS
> LINE to reply
>
>
> Re: Backports on Squeeze
>
> *1QA4xxx2a* | JUL 02, 2012 | 07:47AM UTC Thank
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 02.07.2012 03:15, Mark Panen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05
> system?
I have them enabled on stable Squeeze system and I know some other
people too and we haven't experienced any problems.
By d
On Lu, 02 iul 12, 15:46:40, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 02:15:42AM +0200, Mark Panen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05 system?
>
> I think there is an issue regarding security updates. Also I think you
> need appropriate pin
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 02:15:42AM +0200, Mark Panen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05 system?
I think there is an issue regarding security updates. Also I think you
need appropriate pinning, maybe wrong though.
Also remember to disable backports bef
Mark Panen wrote:
> Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05 system?
Sure, why not.
Just adding the backpors.debian.org lines to your sources.list will do
nothing to your system.
You have to manually install a package from the backports repository to
add it to your system
Hi,
Is it safe to have backports enabled on a stable Squeeze 6.05 system?
--
Cheers
Mark
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ff0e82e.9030...@gmail.com
25 matches
Mail list logo
