David Wright wrote:
> To leave "Select" you have to press . If you unintentionally
> press it twice (eg the keyboard double-strikes, or a slow 386 makes
> you think you might not have tapped the key hard enough)
> dselect goes straight into "Install" whereas you might want "Remove"
> or, even wor
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> With dselect, I kept going around in circles on the
> dependency/conflict resolution screens.
That's because Perl in potato is unstable at the moment, you either have
to remove the packages that haven't yet been upgraded to the new perl
policy or put the
Quoting Michael Merten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Uh, I really think that's what the "Updated Standard packages",
> "Updated Optional packages", etc sections of the select screen are for.
> OTOH, I totally agree that dselect can be dangerous for anyone that
> mistakenly skips the 'select' stage. Perha
Actually, apt-get upgrade will NOT remove packages, nor will it install new
packages
because an upgraded package requires a new package from the man page:
"...under no circumstances are currently installed packages removed and
installed.
New versions of currently installed package that cann
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 04:29:47PM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 05:08:47PM -0500, Michael Merten wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 05:15:29PM +0100, Phillip Deackes wrote:
> > > Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > =>
> > > => Using 'apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 05:08:47PM -0500, Michael Merten wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 05:15:29PM +0100, Phillip Deackes wrote:
> > Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > =>
> > => Using 'apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade' appears to be safer than
> > => upgrading with dselect. The offending
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 04:20:49PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Michael Merten wrote:
>
> > I'm too paranoid to use apt-get upgrade... at least with dselect you
> > actually get so see *which* packages are getting upgraded/removed/etc.
> > I can't see how blindly using
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Michael Merten wrote:
> I'm too paranoid to use apt-get upgrade... at least with dselect you
> actually get so see *which* packages are getting upgraded/removed/etc.
> I can't see how blindly using apt-get upgrade can be safer. Anyone
> that trashes their system with dselec
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 05:15:29PM +0100, Phillip Deackes wrote:
> Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> =>
> => Using 'apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade' appears to be safer than
> => upgrading with dselect. The offending packages are held back and
> => netscape, etc., are not marked for remova
Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, I used dselect to upgrade because I did
not see any
talk about the apt-get upgrade command in time...
My system now seems to have some "issues" I need to work through. I do not
receive any
perl warning at this moment, so I think I will concentrate on fixing
Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
=>
=> Using 'apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade' appears to be safer than
=> upgrading with dselect. The offending packages are held back and
=> netscape, etc., are not marked for removal.
Ahh! I was wondering why I saw around four packages held back when I l
On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 09:27:06AM -0700, Doug Thistlethwaite wrote:
> I finally decided to try potato because I wanted an easy way of getting
> the latest postgresql (6.5)...
>
> I was running slink and used dselect to upgrade.
>
> The biggest problem it seemed to find was a change in perl (DB1.
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 09:07:26AM +0100, Phillip Deackes wrote:
> Bryan Scaringe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> =>
> =>I suggest staying out of the unstable branch for a few days.
>
> Thanks, Bryan. I find posts like that very helpful since this is the only
> Debian list I subscribe to. I am u
Bryan Scaringe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
=>
=> I suggest staying out of the unstable branch for a few days.
Thanks, Bryan. I find posts like that very helpful since this is the only
Debian list I subscribe to. I am using Potato and regularly upgrade using
unstable. I will do as you suggest
Doug,
There seems to be a mess in the "unstable" branch right now
regarding Perl. They are trying to upgrade Perl 5.004 to 5.005.
Unfortunately, Perl is required by serveral packages, (Netscape, for
example), and there seem to be a bunch of conflicts.
I tried to update Netscape, an
15 matches
Mail list logo
