On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:36:07 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:01:12 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:23:25 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>
>>> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 12:07:08, Ramon Hofer wrote:
Thanks for the explanation!
So why didn't they "just"
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:01:12 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:23:25 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
>> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 12:07:08, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the explanation!
>>> So why didn't they "just" update the version that won't receive any
>>> updates?
>>
>> T
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:23:25 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 12:07:08, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation!
>> So why didn't they "just" update the version that won't receive any
>> updates?
>
> The new version changed ABI[1], which means all modules compiled aga
On Ma, 27 mar 12, 12:07:08, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
> Thanks for the explanation!
> So why didn't they "just" update the version that won't receive any
> updates?
The new version changed ABI[1], which means all modules compiled against
bpo.1 need to be recompiled for bpo.2.
[1] http://en.wikipedi
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:00:55 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 10:45:27, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>>
>> I was just thinking if it would be better to switch from linux-
>> image-3.2.0-0.bpo.1-686-pae on another machine to linux-
>> image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae?
>> But maybe the difference
On Ma, 27 mar 12, 10:45:27, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
> I was just thinking if it would be better to switch from linux-
> image-3.2.0-0.bpo.1-686-pae on another machine to linux-
> image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae?
> But maybe the difference isn't immense so I probably shouldn't change the
> running system
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:40:47 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:59:42 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:07:41 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> Btw what's the difference between linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.1-686-pae and
>> linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae and why are bot
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:59:42 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:07:41 +, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> Wow... no need to re-install :-), just be sure about the steps you're
>> doing. Whether in doubt, launch aptitude and try from there, it usually
>> provides insightful informati
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:07:41 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:14:47 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:13 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
What do you think it would be better to completely go with testing.
>>>
>>> Testing is currently quite stable but there a
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:10:08 -0400, Rob Owens wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:15:10PM +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box. I need
>> a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
>> version doesn't see t
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:15:10PM +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box.
> I need a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
> version doesn't see the soundcard. So I wanted to install alsa from
> testing.
>
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:46:27 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> So I thought I'd go with Stable, the kernel from backports and alsa
>> from testing.
>> Unfortunately this doesn't work. I suppose my problem are wrong apt-
>> preferences numbers
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> So I thought I'd go with Stable, the kernel from backports and alsa from
> testing.
> Unfortunately this doesn't work. I suppose my problem are wrong apt-
> preferences numbers or something like this.
Could it be that it's not possible to h
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:14:47 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:13 +, Camaleón wrote:
>>> What do you think it would be better to completely go with testing.
>>
>> Testing is currently quite stable but there are significant differences
>> between wheezy and squeeze, like
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:13 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box. I need
>> a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
>> version doesn't see the soundcard. So I
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box. I need
> a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
> version doesn't see the soundcard. So I wanted to install alsa from
> testing.
> And be
Alex Samad wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 01:59:19PM +1000, Jaime Tarrant wrote:
Alex Samad wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 11:08:38AM -0700, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
yeah new about that, my meaning was more along the lines of if you are
trying to follow testing then the number h
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 01:59:19PM +1000, Jaime Tarrant wrote:
> Alex Samad wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 11:08:38AM -0700, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
[snip]
>>>
>>> Package: *
>>> Pin: release o=Debian, a=experimental
>>> Pin-Priority: 550
>>
>> your numbers seem very high my preferen
Alex Samad wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 11:08:38AM -0700, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
Historically, I've always used APT::Default-Release to keep my system
sane with multiple repositories, but recently reinstalled a system
because it was getting very crufty. I'm trying to prevent a similar
recurrenc
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 11:08:38AM -0700, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> Historically, I've always used APT::Default-Release to keep my system
> sane with multiple repositories, but recently reinstalled a system
> because it was getting very crufty. I'm trying to prevent a similar
> recurrence, so I now h
20 matches
Mail list logo
