On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 12:37:12AM -0600, Jacob S. wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:12:32 -0600
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > The apt-get tool, from what little I've seen so far, is quite nice. I
> > didn't find dependencies especially hard to manage in RedHat, though,
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:20:20 +
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 12:37:12AM -0600, Jacob S. wrote:
> > dpkg -L - lists the files installed by 'package_name'
> >
> > dpkg -S - lists the package(s) that contain files
> > matching
> > the 'file
"Jacob S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:12:32 -0600
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The apt-get tool, from what little I've seen so far, is quite nice. I
>> didn't find dependencies especially hard to manage in RedHat, though,
>> and apt-get seems to s
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 12:37:12AM -0600, Jacob S. wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:12:32 -0600
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The apt-get tool, from what little I've seen so far, is quite nice. I
> > didn't find dependencies especially hard to manage in RedHat, though,
> > an
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:12:32 -0600
"David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Henrik Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > A final comment:
> > The install procedure is not half as hard as everyone
> > said! Refreshing actually!
>
> Glad you found it that way.
>
> Personally, my
"Henrik Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A final comment:
> The install procedure is not half as hard as everyone
> said! Refreshing actually!
Glad you found it that way.
Personally, my experience has been less than good. (I'm still
experimenting, and am by no means ready to give up y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Please do not hijack threads. Post a new thread instead of replying
to another one to start a new topic.
On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:48:56PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote:
> Why is the standard webserver Apache 1.3
> and not 2.0? I thought it was stab
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:11:01 +0100
"Henrik Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, do you know the time frame for stable release of 2.0?
> I can settle for 1.3 but i really like the new features in 2.0.
>
> Henrik
As you said before, I believe 2.0 is now a stable release. It just
wasn't at t
-Original Message-
From: Jacob S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 7 februari 2004 22:54
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Securing it properly
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:56:46 -0500
Brett Carrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:48:56PM +010
On Saturday 07 February 2004 04:54 pm, Jacob S. wrote:
> This will not work in Woody. Apache2 is in Unstable and/or Testing, for
> Debian.
But the OP could check www.backports.org - it probably has a backport of
Apache 2 for Woody.
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:56:46 -0500
Brett Carrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:48:56PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote:
> > Why is the standard webserver Apache 1.3
> > and not 2.0? I thought it was stable.
> If you want to run 2.0 use the package 'apache2'. Because of th
On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 10:18:42PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:48:56PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote:
> I see! Thx!
>
> I just do:
> apt-get remove apache
> apt-get install apache2
>
> Right?
>
> Is the apt-get command really as good as
> the doc i
-Original Message-
From: Brett Carrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 7 februari 2004 21:57
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Securing it properly
On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:48:56PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote:
> Why is the standard webserver Apache 1.3
> and not
On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:48:56PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote:
> Why is the standard webserver Apache 1.3
> and not 2.0? I thought it was stable.
If you want to run 2.0 use the package 'apache2'. Because of the
many changes between the 1.3 tree and 2.0 of apache, Debian has
put apache2 in it's o
14 matches
Mail list logo
