Re: bo->hamm upgrade

Lazar Fleysher writes: > I have bo system installed and I have changed ISP and can not seem to > configure ppp to conect to it. Send me your scripts and the output of plog and I will try to help you. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI

Re: bo -> hamm, network disappears! [SOLVED]

> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Pann McCuaig wrote: > >> Yesterday I upgraded two machines from bo to hamm. The first went well, >> and the second was fine until I rebooted, then the network disappeared. For some reason the `-net' option had been left off the `route add' lines in /etc/init.d/network. All

Re: bo archive

*- George Bonser wrote about "bo archive" | | There is an archive of bo at ftp.shorelink.com in /debian/bo | | I will post a listing of other mirrors on the ftp site as I am made aware | of them. There was a discussion on this on debian-devel recently, check the list archives to see if I missed

Re: Bo-Packages - ftp?

On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: : : On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Martin Schulze wrote: : : > > I have still a bo-box somewhere at home, and I do not have time : > > to upgrade it now, but I would need auctex. : > > : > > Is there still an ftp-server offering the bo-packages? : > : > ftp://

Re: Bo-Packages - ftp?

On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Martin Schulze wrote: > > I have still a bo-box somewhere at home, and I do not have time > > to upgrade it now, but I would need auctex. > > > > Is there still an ftp-server offering the bo-packages? > > ftp://ftp.infodrom.north.de/pub/debian/dists/bo/ is recovering the la

Re: Bo-Packages - ftp?

Clemens Heuberger wrote: > > I have still a bo-box somewhere at home, and I do not have time > to upgrade it now, but I would need auctex. > > Is there still an ftp-server offering the bo-packages? ftp://ftp.infodrom.north.de/pub/debian/dists/bo/ is recovering the latest bo release. Regards,

Re: Bo crashes under heavy disk load

An update to my own post: Thanks to everyone who replied. One of the systems is now stable after removing a set of SIMM modules. The other system hang also appears to be hardware (removing an AGP video adapter seems to eliminate the problem). I now believe that Debian is not a cause of the pro

Re: Bo crashes under heavy disk load

On Fri, Jul 24, 1998 at 03:28:48PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > Torsten Hilbrich wrote: > > > You can try the aic-driver which is available at > > > > ftp://ftp.dialnet.net/pub/linux/aic7xxx/ > > > > I made some good experience, this driver seems to be more stable than > > the one in

Re: Bo crashes under heavy disk load

On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > Torsten Hilbrich wrote: > > > You can try the aic-driver which is available at > > > > ftp://ftp.dialnet.net/pub/linux/aic7xxx/ > > > > I made some good experience, this driver seems to be more stable than > > the one included in 2.0.33 (which

Re: Bo crashes under heavy disk load

Torsten Hilbrich wrote: > You can try the aic-driver which is available at > > ftp://ftp.dialnet.net/pub/linux/aic7xxx/ > > I made some good experience, this driver seems to be more stable than > the one included in 2.0.33 (which I currently use), especially when > activating special feat

Re: Bo crashes under heavy disk load

On: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:42:36 +0300 Jaakko Niemi writes: > >>> I can repeatably crash two (nearly) stock Debian 1.3 systems using >>> one or more scripts, such as >>> >>> find /usr |xargs grep some-arbitrary-string >>> >>> looping with some background activity to use up CPU cycles. >>> >>> The

Re: Bo crashes under heavy disk load

>> I can repeatably crash two (nearly) stock Debian 1.3 systems using one or >> more >> scripts, such as >> >> find /usr |xargs grep some-arbitrary-string >> >> looping with some background activity to use up CPU cycles. >> >> The systems seem stable, otherwise. Only common hardware are ultra-

Re: bo-->hamm: 'iso9660 not supported'

john, thanks for your patience and your help. purged ppp-2.3.5 and downgraded to ppp-2.2.0f...so i'm once again happily SLiRPing along. i had tried just downgrading without purging the newer version but got the same behavior from 2.2 as 2.3 as long as 2.3 was on the system. --c [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: bo -> hamm details

On Wed, Jul 08, 1998 at 02:14:29PM +0200, Matus fantomas Uhlar wrote: > Hello, > > someone said autoup.sh will remove *-dev packages etc. yes it will > is there any way to upgrade to hamm w/o this ? if I just set up dselect to > download from "hamm" directories and I'll start installing packkag

Re: bo-->hamm: 'iso9660 not supported'

Nathan E Norman writes: > Out of curiousity, what will happen to a PPP setup in a server > environment? (the linux box is the RAS) The files that the ppp postinst messes with are only used by pon to dial out. However, you may still need to do some reconfiguration as some of the changes in pppd a

Re: bo-->hamm: 'iso9660 not supported'

On 7 Jul 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : Dennis writes: : > Upgrades do not affect the configurations, either. I'm not sure if they : > do, but if chat/pppd packages prompt you during installs/upgrade, you : > should keep the existing configuration files instead of installing the : > maintainers

Re: bo-->hamm: 'iso9660 not supported'

Dennis writes: > Upgrades do not affect the configurations, either. I'm not sure if they > do, but if chat/pppd packages prompt you during installs/upgrade, you > should keep the existing configuration files instead of installing the > maintainers configs. Keeping existing config files is usually

Re: bo-->hamm: 'iso9660 not supported'

Chea, Don't know about the PPP problem. Haven't had any here. The other problem is caused by not configuring the NLS support in the kernel. In order to get the ISO99660, FAT, MSDOS, VFAT (there may be others, I'm not sure) you need to say yes to NLS. Good luck, Steve Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: bo-->hamm: 'iso9660 not supported'

while configuring the kernel i saw no option to choose iso9660 support ...did i miss something? Under 'filesystems' click on 'yes' for 'Native Language Support (NLS)'. Once this is done you will see iso9660, vfat, etc options. [menuconfig came up in b&w instead of color (not that i

Re: Bo pppd not support IPX?

Tim Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've being trying to get a Win95 machine to dialin with a IPX connecting, > but adding the settings for IPX as per the man page, causes pppd to fail, > saying that the ipx settings are invalid. > > I take it this means the pppd isn't compiled with IPX supp

[ecogburn@greene.xtn.net: Re: bo or hamm?]

D]> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.1.105 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Debian Users Subject: Re: bo or hamm? References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Envelop

Re: bo or hamm?

Gerald V. Livingston lI wrote: > > I have bo on CD. I'm about to install a new system. Destroying > the system and rebuilding from scratch doesn't bother me as it's my > home system. > > In the lists opinion, should I go ahead and re-install bo now, or > wait for a hamm CD? > > Gerald V. Liv

Re: bo: Problem with Xlib

The paths... > -L/usr/X11R6/lib Thanks Nils -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: bo to hamm and libc5 vs libc6

Hi Chip, I believe that the XFree86 sites/mirrors contain sets of binaries for both glibc/libc6 and for libc5. Someone correct me if I am wrong. If you are willing to install things manually instead of using Debian's nifty packages, then you can download the XF86-3.3.2 binaries and just untar th

Re: bo-unstable bash

At 13:20 -0600 1998-03-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I tried to install the bo-unstable bash and it has a dependency on both >libc5 and libc6. Is this correct? No, it's not, there's a corrected version in bo-unstable now. -- Joel "Espy" KleckerDebian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: bo - Afterstep - colours

John Spence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I only have 1meg video RAM and I run X at 1024x768 with 8bpp. > > I have a colour problem when I run Afterstep which results in the top 2 > wharf icons not displaying and causes Netscape to display in black and > white. This colour problem doesn't occur

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

Jens Ritter wrote: > You don´t have to. I always run my production system as bo (but ok, I > have got an unstable system, too. That´s because I want to take part > in the development.) The advantages/disadvantages of a hamm system are: > > 1) glibc6 > 2) New source format for packages > 3) A lot o

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

Ben Gertzfield wrote: > > "William" == William D Rendahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > William> How about Sid (the "Happy child")? > > Do we want to seem evil? :) > Well, there's always Mrs. Nesbit (Buzz in drag) . . . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubsc

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

> "William" == William D Rendahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: William> How about Sid (the "Happy child")? Do we want to seem evil? :) -- Brought to you by the letters U and T and the number 14. "I put my feet on the Ottoman.. Empire." -- Moxy Fruvous Ben Gertzfield

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

Dale Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > bo and hamm are just code names. bo has been unstable when rex was stable > > and hamm will become stable with the next release. The names actually are > > names of figures from Pixar's movie Toy Story. Bruce Perens, who used to > > be the project leade

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

> bo and hamm are just code names. bo has been unstable when rex was stable > and hamm will become stable with the next release. The names actually are > names of figures from Pixar's movie Toy Story. Bruce Perens, who used to > be the project leader, works at Pixar. A bit of a silly question, but

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Markus Lechner wrote: > Maybe this question is really stupid, but anyway: > > bo, hamm, stable, unstable, etc. What's this? Hamm means unstable or > untested - concerning to the kernel or only to the software packages? I > feel a bit outdated when running bo and it looks lik

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

Hallo Markus, Posted and mailed. Markus Lechner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Maybe this question is really stupid, but anyway: > > bo, hamm, stable, unstable, etc. What's this? > Hamm means unstable or untested - concerning to the kernel or only to > the software packages? Well, only to the

Re: Bo with Wine

On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 02:15:49PM -0600, IBMackey wrote: > Is there a way to keep the bo distribution of debian and install Wine? > > I was thinking that you might could downgrade and use the older version of > libc5 which doesn't conflict w libc6, then just add the libc6 program, > make links, a

Re: bo to hamm upgrade

On Sat, Dec 27, 1997 at 09:30:56PM -0500, Randy Edwards wrote: > Scott K. Ellis wrote: > > Neither. If you remove libc5, you will break your system and have to > > reinstall completely. I repeat, DO NOT FORCE THE REMOVAL OF LIBC5 UNDER > > ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. > >Well, although nearly fatal, I

Re: bo to hamm upgrade

On Sat, 27 Dec 1997, Randy Edwards wrote: > reinstall. I did go ahead and remove libc5 and was surprised at how > many things it broke. It broke things "real good." :-) Since I did Yup. :) > have a spare partition on this machine I went ahead and used an old copy > of Debian 1.2 and installed

Re: bo to hamm upgrade

Scott K. Ellis wrote: > Neither. If you remove libc5, you will break your system and have to > reinstall completely. I repeat, DO NOT FORCE THE REMOVAL OF LIBC5 UNDER > ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Well, although nearly fatal, I didn't have to do a complete reinstall. I did go ahead and remove libc5 a

Re: bo to hamm upgrade

On Sat, 27 Dec 1997, Randy Edwards wrote: > Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > http://www.gate.net/~storm/FAQ/libc5-libc6-Mini-HOWTO.html > >Thanks Marcus! One quick question if you don't mind: When installing > libc6 in place of libc5, should I force the removal of the essential > libc5 package

Re: bo to hamm upgrade

Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > http://www.gate.net/~storm/FAQ/libc5-libc6-Mini-HOWTO.html Thanks Marcus! One quick question if you don't mind: When installing libc6 in place of libc5, should I force the removal of the essential libc5 package first or force the installation of libc6 in addition to

Re: bo to hamm upgrade

On Sat, Dec 27, 1997 at 01:14:56PM +0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Does anyone have a set of instructions for hand upgrading a working bo > > system to the present hamm? I saw some such instructions posted a month or > > so ago, but didn't have the foresight to save the message. Any assist

Re: bo to hamm upgrade

>Does anyone have a set of instructions for hand upgrading a working bo > system to the present hamm? I saw some such instructions posted a month or > so ago, but didn't have the foresight to save the message. Any assistance > would be greatly appreciated; thanks in advance. You can find the

Re: bo and hamm distributions

On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, Scott Ellis wrote: > On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, Paul Miller wrote: > > > > For the most part, everything is compiled only for hamm. Many (most?) > > > developers don't have access to machines for compiling libc5-based stuff > > > easily anymore, and bo is supposed to be frozen exc

Re: bo and hamm distributions

On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, Scott Ellis wrote: > On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Paul Miller wrote: > > > When a new version of a program is released, is a copy compiled to bo and > > another for hamm? .. or is bo left without any updates? The reason I ask > > is I thinking of re-installing the bo distribution be

Re: bo and hamm distributions

On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, Paul Miller wrote: > > For the most part, everything is compiled only for hamm. Many (most?) > > developers don't have access to machines for compiling libc5-based stuff > > easily anymore, and bo is supposed to be frozen except for security and > > severe bugfix releases. >

Re: bo and hamm distributions

On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, Scott Ellis wrote: > On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Paul Miller wrote: > > > When a new version of a program is released, is a copy compiled to bo and > > another for hamm? .. or is bo left without any updates? The reason I ask > > is I thinking of re-installing the bo distribution be

Re: bo and hamm distributions

On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Paul Miller wrote: > When a new version of a program is released, is a copy compiled to bo and > another for hamm? .. or is bo left without any updates? The reason I ask > is I thinking of re-installing the bo distribution because I can barely > compile anything using hamm. -

Re: Bo ? Hamm ?

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Mario Jorge Nunes Filipe wrote: >I'm kinda new to this Debian stuff, so... Everybody asks this :) >What is the difference between bo and hamm and what do this names mean "bo" and "hamm" are codenames for Debian 1.3 and 2.0 respectively. The names are taken from the mo

Re: Bo ? Hamm ?

On Tue, Oct 14, 1997 at 06:06:37PM +0100, Mario Jorge Nunes Filipe wrote: > Hi > >I'm kinda new to this Debian stuff, so... What is the difference between > bo > and hamm and what do this names mean Bo is the code name for the latest stable release 1.3, hamm ist the codename for the unstab

Re: Bo ? Hamm ?

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Mario Jorge Nunes Filipe wrote: >I'm kinda new to this Debian stuff, so... What is the difference > between bo and hamm and what do this names mean Bo is the current release of Debian, version 1.3.1r4 (currently). Hamm is the development release, still under constuction.

Re: Bo-Hamm was Re: ghostscript problem

Dave Restall wrote: > > > Please enlighten me as to the meaning of "hamm" ? > > > Because this question or a variance on it is asked SO OFTEN, > shouldn't the people who decide these things be thinking > "Hey perhaps we're doing something wrong here ?". > Hamm, bo, rex are codenames. These are "

Re: Bo-Hamm was Re: ghostscript problem

On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Dave Restall wrote: > > >.. but that's hamm only. > > > > > Please enlighten me as to the meaning of "hamm" ? > Because this question or a variance on it is asked SO OFTEN, shouldn't > the people who decide these things be thinking "Hey perhaps we're doing > something wron

RE: Bo-Hamm was Re: ghostscript problem

On 07-Oct-97 Dave Restall wrote: >Hi, >> > >> >.. but that's hamm only. >> > >> Please enlighten me as to the meaning of "hamm" ? >> >> Ignorant >> > >Because this question or a variance on it is asked SO OFTEN, shouldn't >the people who decide these things be thinking "Hey perhaps we're doi

Re: Bo-Hamm was Re: ghostscript problem

On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Dave Restall wrote: > Hi, > > > > > > >.. but that's hamm only. > > > > > Please enlighten me as to the meaning of "hamm" ? > > > > > > Ignorant > > > > > > Because this question or a variance on it is asked SO OFTEN, shouldn't > the people who decide these things be

Re: bo-updates

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Alex Yukhimets wrote: > > ... > > This would be a good solution, stable stays stable! And creating these > > sub-directories wouldn't be _that_ hard... or am I missing something? > > Yes, you are :) > You don't need those subdirectories, but just one plain Packages.gz file > i

Re: bo-updates

> Hi! > > I may be wrong, but: > > When bo-updates had the same structure as stable, non-free and contrib, > one could in fact use dselect to install the bo-updates, just by typing > > Enter space seperated list of distributions to get > [stable non-free contrib]: stable non-free contrib bo-upda

Re: bo and hamm-packages

> I have installed bo and would like to add some hamm-packages (which not > exist in bo) without upgrading to hamm. Is this possible -- provided that > there are no dependency problems? Yes. -- Stefan Baums Universitaet Goettingen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING L

Re: bo and pcmcia installation...

On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Jason Costomiris wrote: > I'm trying to load 1.3.0 on a notebook. I made the boot, driver, and 5 > base diskettes. I also made a couple of ext2fs diskettes that had > pcmcia-cs_2.9.5-3, pcmcia-modules-2.0.30, and the 2.0.30 kernel-image. I fixed the problem by using pcmcia-

Re: Bo.

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Kevin J Poorman wrote: > I have had debian linux running for about 9 months (So I still a newbie) > in this time I have learned alot about system admin and system keepup. > also in this time I have made some royal srewups. so I have made the > desion to wipe clean my hard disk

Re: Bo.

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Kevin J Poorman wrote: > I have had debian linux running for about 9 months (So I still a newbie) > in this time I have learned alot about system admin and system keepup. > also in this time I have made some royal srewups. so I have made the > desion to wipe clean my hard disk

Re: Bo Package List

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Rick wrote: > I assume that the unstable dir was removed since bo is no longer conciderred > unstable. > > What's up with the packages file pointing to unstable? > There's some problem, apparently. > How is it that others are installing bo and not run accross this yet?

Re: bo : upgrade or reinstall

On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Alexandre Lebrun wrote: > > I've just decided to upgrade from stable to bo, or unstable, whatever the > name is. > > Would it be useful for the projet if I do a full install and report > the bugs (if any) ? > I can easily backup my home directory and forget the rest. Yes

Re: Bo has been Frozen -- Beta Test

On Apr 5, Brian C. White wrote > Bo has now been officially frozen! If you'd like to start upgrading Great! However, unstable still points to bo meaning that anything put in unstable will also magically appear in frozen. David -- David EngelODS Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: BO

> I don't understand you fuc**ng ppl! Okay, let's all just take it easy. Yes, the original mail was a little overbearing but this doesn't help calm the situation. It's really easy to take what is said in email more seriously, more condesending, and more rudely than the author intended (with blam

Re: BO

Rick writes: > I haven't run across this original msg yet, since I am re-configuring my > system > and am just now getting to read some email, but I would like to say something > ab > out all the ppl that post to this list and do nothing but bitch about the > curren > t state of Debian/Linux.

Re: BO

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 02-Apr-97 Dale Scheetz wrote: >On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Leon Castellanos wrote: > > > >> If you find this e-mail offensive please ignore it and > /dev/null or if >> that doesn't satisfy you please email bomb me or something :) >> >Well, something anyway ;-) > >

Re: BO

You are partly right. There could be bugs in the base installation problem. I had a similar problem trying to install the stable 2.0.27 kernal. I was getting command errors related to my hard drive. Linux could not get past the partition check. I thought it was the hardware that I was using

Re: BO

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: [ snip ] Note also, that you are overlooking >the possibility of upgrading a 1.2 system to bo. This is also a method >that needs testing, and it doesn't depend on the installation disk >directory. Speaking of which, I've upgraded quite a few packag

Re: BO

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Leon Castellanos wrote: > Ok I downloaded BO to see if I could contribute to the debian effort by > testing the packages and reporting bugs, but to my surprise it is so BETA > that I cannot even install it. I understand that debian is a volunteer > effort and that what ppl do

Re: BO

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Leon Castellanos wrote: > If you find this e-mail offensive please ignore it and > /dev/null or if > that doesn't satisfy you please email bomb me or something :) > Well, something anyway ;-) With your long winded discussion there was, just barely, enough information to d

Re: bo is full of symlinks to rex?

> Rick Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > changing the flags passed to the remote ls: > > flags_recursive+L > > or > > flags_nonrecursive+L > > Anybody got a better method to mirror only the "unstable" tree > > efficiently? Rob Browning wrote: > Nope, this

Re: bo is full of symlinks to rex?

Bo is full of symlinks to rex to aviod duplication. The master.debian.org hard drive is nearly full, and to make all three trees (buzz, rex, bo) self-contained again would use up several hundred more megabytes. -- Stephen Pitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Proudly running De

Re: bo is full of symlinks to rex?

> Prior to the freezing of rex, "unstable" (rex) contained all of the > physical files of the distribution. > > Now, "unstable" is "bo", and it has many links back to rex. > > At what point will "bo" loose the links to rex and be self-contained > again? The plan is to leave symlinks from "bo" to

Re: bo is full of symlinks to rex?

Rick Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > changing the flags passed to the remote ls: > flags_recursive+L > or > flags_nonrecursive+L > > First test this by trying a ls -lRatL on the remote site > under the ftp command to check whether the remote fil

Re: bo is full of symlinks to rex?

Rick Macdonald writes: > When the change occured, my mirror of "unstable" lost a bunch of files. > Now I have to get both rex and bo. I think I can continually mirror > "unstable" only, by careful use of the following option in mirror, but > I haven't actually tried this yet: > [description of flag

Re: bo is full of symlinks to rex?

Rick Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Prior to the freezing of rex, "unstable" (rex) contained all of the > physical files of the distribution. > > Now, "unstable" is "bo", and it has many links back to rex. > > At what point will "bo" loose the links to rex and be self-contained > again?

Re: last date for frozen upload (was: Re: bo, rex?)

November 27, I think. Bruce -- Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-m

last date for frozen upload (was: Re: bo, rex?)

Hi Brian, You wrote: Brian> Rex has been frozen so only bug fixes are going there. It Brian> should be released as stable in a couple weeks. Bo is the new Brian> unstable tree. Can smbd tell me the exact date that is a limit for bug fux upload into frozen? My hard disk blew up and it will take s

Re: bo, rex?

> why there is bo in the ftp site? Is it the same as rex? Rex has been frozen so only bug fixes are going there. It should be released as stable in a couple weeks. Bo is the new unstable tree. Brian

Re: bo, rex?

On Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:02:45 +1100 Lawrence Chim ([EMAIL PROTECTED] t.edu.au) wrote: > why there is bo in the ftp site? Is it the same as rex? Rex, aka frozen, aka 1.2 is under code freeze. No new package is added there. Bo is the new development (unstable) version. Currently, most of the bo p

Re: bo, rex?

Lawrence Chim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > why there is bo in the ftp site? Is it the same as rex? bo is the new unstable release. rex was the previous unstable release that has gone into code freeze, and should become the next stable release in time. Right now: unstable --> bo frozen --

Re: bo, rex?

Lawrence Chim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > why there is bo in the ftp site? Is it the same as rex? If you look at the symlinks, you'll see that unstable points to bo and frozen points to rex. rex is the frozen 1.2 tree. Lots of packages are still going into it as bugs get fixed, but no new pa