On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:24:44PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> > Why are these inadequate tools still there if not to be used? I'm not
> > trying to be argumentative, I think it's a reasonable question. The
> > beautiful aptitude can be used on even a bare minimum command-line
> > installation on
doofus wrote:
> Harsh. Some credit must go to the entrepreneurial spirit of he whose
> choice (big free software term, right?) it is to do things by the seat
> of his pants.
Yes, credit to that person who does so, understands that's what they're
doing and most importantly does not complain abo
Steve Lamb wrote:
I hate to say it but this isn't a practical problem. This is a PEBKAC.
Harsh. Some credit must go to the entrepreneurial spirit of he whose
choice (big free software term, right?) it is to do things by the seat
of his pants.
You're insisting on downloading individu
nuno romano wrote:
> I simply don´t believe that we need to substitute major libraries each time
> we pick a new version of a program few weeks later.
On stable, you don't. But then you said yourself you went from a
pre-release to post-release upgrade.
> NOTE: I am aware that with apt-get PO
On (02/08/05 16:59), nuno romano wrote:
> I have Debian 3.1Sarge(testing) from early
> May2005,since then I have
> downloaded binary packages from testing(latest May)
> and 3.1stable
> (early June) and with dpkg -install package_x.deb I
> usually get:
>
You're probably better off using aptitude wh
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 04:59:33PM -0700, nuno romano wrote:
> I have Debian 3.1Sarge(testing) from early
> May2005,since then I have
> downloaded binary packages from testing(latest May)
> and 3.1stable
> (early June) and with dpkg -install package_x.deb I
> usually get:
>
> dpkg: dependency prob
6 matches
Mail list logo
