Siju George wrote:
I have downloaded sarge today and am going to install it so I'll let
you know the details soon.
I happened to see something strange though!
You should probably start a new thread with your new topic. You have a
better chance of getting a response from people other than
I forgot to mention that it also says...
"If you installed other than from a CD or DVD (for example, netboot, or
booting from floppy and installing the base system from the network),
you are not affected by this bug."
Christopher
Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 03:54 pm,
The note says
"If you have already installed a system using a 3.1r0 CD/DVD image, you
do not need to reinstall. Instead, simply edit /etc/apt/sources.list,
look for any lines mentioning security.debian.org, change "testing" to
"stable", and remove "# " from the start of the line."
So I
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 03:54 pm, Christopher Smiga wrote:
> I saw this on a mirror site earlier today.
>
> -
>
>
> Note: 3.1r0 CD image problem
>
> A bug has been discovered in the 3.1r0 CD/DVD images: new installs from
> these images will have a commented-out entry in /etc/apt/sources.l
I saw this on a mirror site earlier today.
-
Note: 3.1r0 CD image problem
A bug has been discovered in the 3.1r0 CD/DVD images: new installs from
these images will have a commented-out entry in /etc/apt/sources.list
for "http://security.debian.org/ testing/updates" rather than an active
e
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 20:27 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> I took the occasion of this release to review my sources.list and preferences.
> In the process I did some experiments and found a puzzle that I hope
> someone will explain.
>
> With sarge in my sources.list I have nothing to download beca
I took the occasion of this release to review my sources.list and preferences.
In the process I did some experiments and found a puzzle that I hope
someone will explain.
With sarge in my sources.list I have nothing to download because I have been
tracking sarge for almost a year. But I set source
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:24:30PM -0400, Tom Allison wrote:
> Clive Menzies wrote:
> >A message to all those responsible for the sarge release:
> >http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/credits
> >Many thanks for all your brilliant work accomplished with generosity and
> >patience.
> >A very gr
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:36:37PM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote:
> Hi
>
> A message to all those responsible for the sarge release:
>
> http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/credits
>
> Many thanks for all your brilliant work accomplished with generosity and
> patience.
>
> A very grateful user ;
Tom Allison wrote:
>
> Should I be concerned that my link to
>
> http://non-us.debian.org testing/non-US/non-free
> and other 'non-us.debian.org' URLs?
>
> It seems that a lot of things are not responding. Is this the result of
> 38000 users all trying to access the exact same server?
>
>
T
Clive Menzies wrote:
Hi
A message to all those responsible for the sarge release:
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/credits
Many thanks for all your brilliant work accomplished with generosity and
patience.
A very grateful user ;)
Clive
Should I be concerned that my link to
http://n
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 03:21:00PM -0500, John Fleming wrote:
> > because the final Sarge "will be ready when it will be ready", and it will
> be
> > _good_ and _stable_
> > That's what's really important, no?
>
> Really naive question - Could recently-released SpamAssassin 3.0 still make
> it int
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 09:36:22AM -0700, Jianbo Wang wrote:
> Does anyone know the frozen, release data of sarge? Thanks!
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/09/msg5.html
--
Blast you and your estrogenical treachery!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Wednesday 22 September 2004 22:21, John Fleming wrote:
> > _good_ and _stable_
> > That's what's really important, no?
>
> Really naive question
It depends what "_good_" means, don't you think?
> - Could recently-released SpamAssassin 3.0 still make
> it into Sarge, or is that way too new and
> because the final Sarge "will be ready when it will be ready", and it will
be
> _good_ and _stable_
> That's what's really important, no?
Really naive question - Could recently-released SpamAssassin 3.0 still make
it into Sarge, or is that way too new and not enough time to make it into
Sarge? I
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jianbo Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone know the frozen, release data of sarge? Thanks!
If we did, it would be on Debian.org. That being said, this is open
source, it doesn't matter if it's released or no
On Wednesday 22 September 2004 18:36, Jianbo Wang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know the frozen, release data of sarge? Thanks!
>
> Regards!
>
> Jianbo
Hello Jianbo,
We can only make forecasts based on the following figures:
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
because the final Sarge "wi
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:54:33AM -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Wed, August 11, 2004 5:58, James said:
>
> > Let's face it, most of linux's problems are a result on not being
> > about to recruit a sufficient talent pool of low level embedded
> > developers. Most of those that do convert (after a
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:54:33 -0600 (MDT)
"Nate Duehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, August 11, 2004 5:58, James said:
>
> > Let's face it, most of linux's problems are a result on not being
> > about to recruit a sufficient talent pool of low level embedded
> > developers. Most of those th
On Wed, August 11, 2004 5:58, James said:
> Let's face it, most of linux's problems are a result on not being
> about to recruit a sufficient talent pool of low level embedded
> developers. Most of those that do convert (after a convoluted learning
> path) end up at a proprietary shop that puts li
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:30:29 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus spake Paul Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I've googled around but can seem to find a date for the release of
> > > Sarge as stable. Anyone have any guesses?
> >
>
Thus spake Paul Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've googled around but can seem to find a date for the release of
> > Sarge as stable. Anyone have any guesses?
>
> Sometime around Christmas 2003.
So it's already nearly 8 months late...:-)
Didn't I see a
Incoming from Chris Metzler:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 14:34:16 +0100 (BST)
> Thomas Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sick to death of this "voting" business. Sarge will be released When
>
> Uh, WTF? This concerns a vote the developers were having on what
Marvelous. Excellent. Some of u
--- Chris Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> were voting on this topic. The developers decided they needed to
> address this issue (and I think they were right). Why does that
> trouble you so?
It doesn't trouble me, per se. I just wish all the red-tape, squabbling,
arguing would stop, so th
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 14:34:16 +0100 (BST)
Thomas Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm sick to death of this "voting" business. Sarge will be released When
> It's Ready, and not a moment sooner. If that's too late for you, then
> tough. Either dist-upgrade to (the current) testing, or backport eve
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 09:32:04AM -0600 or thereabouts, s. keeling wrote:
> I couldn't care less when sarge goes stable. Take your time guys. No
> rush! You did such a great job on woody, it would be a shame to give
> up on it now. :-)
Hear, Hear. I for one like the 'when it's ready" ap
Incoming from Thomas Adam:
>
> I'm sick to death of this "voting" business. Sarge will be released When
That's a very good point. For those who _just can't wait_ for sarge
to go stable, I say nuts to you! There are many options for you,
including sarge and sid, and Libranet, Xandros, Morphix, .
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 02:34:16PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> I'm sick to death of this "voting" business. Sarge will be released When
> It's Ready, and not a moment sooner ...
The vote isn't about whether it's ready, it's about whether to
discard the current Sarge and start from scratch.
> ...
--- Kent Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my vote if it doesnt blow up woody. (ducking) ;)
> - Original Message -
> From: "Travis Crump" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Debian User List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 12:24 AM
> Subject: sarge release vote
I'm sic
my vote if it doesnt blow up woody. (ducking) ;)
- Original Message -
From: "Travis Crump" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Debian User List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 12:24 AM
Subject: sarge release vote
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 10:08:47AM +0200, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea when Debian Sarge will be released as stable?
> I know, it will be released when it's ready, but I am setting up a
> schedule here for my tasks, and even if I could have an approximate
> date of it's release
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 05:10:56 -0800, Ralph Bacolod wrote:
> Hi! When is sarge release date?
When it is ready.
For more information, follow the debian-release list and
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ .
This really ought to be in the FAQ.
Ray
--
"Perhaps they spent some of the time w
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:28:07AM -0500, David Krider wrote:
> Please note that I'm NOT trolling or looking to start a flamewar. It's
> just that it took me three tries to get Woody installed. I've heard that
> Sarge will have a new installer and a new manual.
In that case, don't worry about it.
On Sunday 30 March 2003 10:28, David Krider wrote:
> Please note that I'm NOT trolling or looking to start a flamewar. It's
> just that it took me three tries to get Woody installed. I've heard that
> Sarge will have a new installer and a new manual. I'm looking to get a
> feel for the timeframe.
On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 10:28, David Krider wrote:
> I realize that there's no official release date for Sarge, but does
> anyone have a guesstimate of when it might actually be? I'm not looking
> for a day, per se, but 3 months? Six months? A year?
>
> Please note that I'm NOT trolling or looking t
35 matches
Mail list logo
