On 17 Nov 2003 16:31:58 -0700,
Robert Soricone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thank you, everyone! You have given me enough ammo to actually turn
> some guru heads! They like both FAI and systemimager. They are
> impressed with the speed of the security releases.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:44:17PM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:12:43PM -0500, Sven Heinicke wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:22:33AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > > > When you do 'apt-get upgrade' you will only update stable->stable and
> > > > (maybe) testing->testing
Thank you, everyone! You have given me enough ammo to actually turn
some guru heads! They like both FAI and systemimager. They are
impressed with the speed of the security releases. My last hurdle is
finding out which applications have been ported (by our programmers)
over to RH, and seeing if
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:12:43PM -0500, Sven Heinicke wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:22:33AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > > When you do 'apt-get upgrade' you will only update stable->stable and
> > > (maybe) testing->testing updates. If it doesn't do testing->testing,
> > > then you have t
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:22:33AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > When you do 'apt-get upgrade' you will only update stable->stable and
> > (maybe) testing->testing updates. If it doesn't do testing->testing,
> > then you have to do each one of them manually.
> >
> > This allows you to use stable
> When you do 'apt-get upgrade' you will only update stable->stable and
> (maybe) testing->testing updates. If it doesn't do testing->testing,
> then you have to do each one of them manually.
>
> This allows you to use stable as the default installation and then pull
> in spamassassin (for exa
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2003 11:54, John L. Fjellstad wrote:
The newbie wouldn't pick it from the crackers site, because the
newbie would just change his sources.list file to point at testing or
unstable.
Not if he wants to use stable. snort in unstable depends on libc6 (>=
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 16 November 2003 12:16, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> And I mean, the core question is: What is the advantage of not updating
> packages, when the package is in question is so old you shouldn't use
> it?
As far as I know, security patches get bac
On Sunday 16 November 2003 18:51, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Your point gets debated often on the debian lists. The end result is
> almost always that debian needs to release more often. The current
> release cycle is way too long. The solution to this problem is not
> so clear. Everyone has ideas.
On Sunday 16 November 2003 20:29, Johannes Zarl wrote:
> > And I mean, the core question is: What is the advantage of not
> > updating packages, when the package is in question is so old you
> > shouldn't use it?
>
> Sorry, if I miss the point, but if there is an advisory against using
> the versio
> And I mean, the core question is: What is the advantage of not updating
> packages, when the package is in question is so old you shouldn't use
> it?
Sorry, if I miss the point, but if there is an advisory against using the
version of snort oficially released with woody, shouldn't there also b
First let me say that Debian makes a great enterprise platform. I am
using it for such myself. But actually, I only use it for the base
framework. I carefully drive the addition and deletion of packages.
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> > Do 'apt-get source ' (which always gets
On Sunday 16 November 2003 18:10, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> Do 'apt-get source ' (which always gets you the latest
> source). Then 'cd - && dpkg-buildpackage'
Yup, that's cool and all, but really, it doesn't answer the question,
what is it to gain by having outdated packages in the archive...?
C
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2003 11:54, John L. Fjellstad wrote:
The newbie wouldn't pick it from the crackers site, because the
newbie would just change his sources.list file to point at testing or
unstable.
Not if he wants to use stable. snort in unstable depends on libc6 (>=
On Sunday 16 November 2003 11:54, John L. Fjellstad wrote:
> The newbie wouldn't pick it from the crackers site, because the
> newbie would just change his sources.list file to point at testing or
> unstable.
Not if he wants to use stable. snort in unstable depends on libc6 (>=
2.3.2-1), so upgra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 16 November 2003 10:40, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> The funny thing is that many of these are security related; I mean, what
> a perfect way to trojan a bunch of newbie's machines: The newbie hears
> on debian-user that he must update some of t
On Sunday 16 November 2003 00:24, Jesse Meyer wrote:
> Debian-stable (the branch you want to be using for servers) tends to
> be several months to a year behind the bleeding edge. This bothers
> some people. For a server, I'd rather go with a tested solution then
> the bleeding edge, but others d
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:24:52 -0600
Jesse Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> =[CON]===
> == Debian-stable (the branch you want to be using for servers) tends
> to be several months to a year behind the bleeding edge. This bother
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Robert Soricone wrote:
> A computer network, that is currently using RedHat, is interested in migrating
> to another distribution. Preferably, by April 30 2004.
*Looks into crystal ball* I predict that you are using Redhat 9. [RH9
"end of life" is on that day. RH7.x an
Roberto Sanchez wrote:
Robert Soricone wrote:
A computer network, that is currently using RedHat, is interested in migrating
You may also want to look at systemimager, which lets you customize one
client exaclty how you want it and then duplicate that install across a
whole bunch of other machi
Robert Soricone wrote:
A computer network, that is currently using RedHat, is interested in migrating
to another distribution. Preferably, by April 30 2004. If the group were to
consider moving to Debian, what in-house work would need to be performed that
was previously being done by the RH en
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:15:18 -0700,
Paul E Condon wrote:
[...]
> Red Hat is abandoning its old business model because that model
> wasn't working for its investors. You (and everyone else) can
> expect other distributions that have a business model basis to
> also fail for the same reasons. What
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:17:29AM -0700, Robert Soricone wrote:
> A computer network, that is currently using RedHat, is interested in migrating
> to another distribution. Preferably, by April 30 2004. If the group were to
> consider moving to Debian, what in-house work would need to be perfor
A computer network, that is currently using RedHat, is interested in migrating
to another distribution. Preferably, by April 30 2004. If the group were to
consider moving to Debian, what in-house work would need to be performed that
was previously being done by the RH engineers? The FAI packa
24 matches
Mail list logo
