On 24 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ed writes:
> > ...once I had a working system of X/lesstif/latex/gcc and a lot of
> > utils I couldn't see the point in upgrading.
>
> That's fine if you never intend to add any new packages. If you do,
> eventually you will be forced to upgrade do to cha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> eventually you will be forced to upgrade do to changes in libc, the kernel,
> perl, etc. It is my understanding from what I've read on this list that it
> is pretty much impossible to upgrade an "old" installation like mine
> without re-installing.
How "old"? I upgraded
Ed Down <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmm, I wasn't aware of this. Couldn't debian fit the last release in
> total on the ftp site in a 'frozen' state for ftp users? I for one was
> happy with the 1.2 release 'out of the box' and would probably not have
> bothered upgrading until the next release
On 24 Feb 1997, Guy Maor wrote:
> Ed Down <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But, on the ftp site, doesn't rex contain what was, in effect, the
> > original 1.2.0 release in total?
>
> No, not in total, just a subset. Source and binaries in 1.2.0 that
> have been replaced by files in rex-updates
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[concerned that he can't upgrade without completely re-installing his system]
> I installed 1.1.
You will have to upgrade dpkg by hand to the version in the release you
are installing:
dpkg -i dpkg-x.x.x.x.deb
dpkg --clear-avail
_Then_ update the list of a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Ed Down wrote:
> On 24 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Ed writes:
> > > ...once I had a working system of X/lesstif/latex/gcc and a lot of utils
> > > I couldn't see the point in upgrading.
> >
> > That's fine if you never intend to a
Ed writes:
> As I understand it 'rex' still contains all the packages (that were
> available then) as they were at the release of 1.2.0.
By "new packages" I meant ones which were not available in old releases.
> So if you installed 1.2.0 you can still add new packages from there
> without upgrade
Ed Down <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 24 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It is my understanding from what I've read on this list that it
> > is pretty much impossible to upgrade an "old" installation like mine
> > without re-installing.
That's an extremely harsh criticism. Upgrading to
On 24 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ed writes:
> > ...once I had a working system of X/lesstif/latex/gcc and a lot of utils
> > I couldn't see the point in upgrading.
>
> That's fine if you never intend to add any new packages. If you do,
> eventually you will be forced to upgrade do to cha
Ed writes:
> ...once I had a working system of X/lesstif/latex/gcc and a lot of utils
> I couldn't see the point in upgrading.
That's fine if you never intend to add any new packages. If you do,
eventually you will be forced to upgrade do to changes in libc, the kernel,
perl, etc. It is my under
On 21 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Craig writes:
> > If you dont have a good net connection, I'd recommend getting a freshly
> > burned CD with unstable on it once a month and upgrading from that.
>
> In other words, if you don't have plenty of money, don't use Debian.
Definitely not! I s
On 21 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Craig writes:
> > If you dont have a good net connection, I'd recommend getting a freshly
> > burned CD with unstable on it once a month and upgrading from that.
>
> In other words, if you don't have plenty of money, don't use Debian.
> --
I got Debian di
On 21 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Craig writes:
> > If you dont have a good net connection, I'd recommend getting a
> > freshly burned CD with unstable on it once a month and upgrading
> > from that.
>
> In other words, if you don't have plenty of money, don't use Debian.
not at all. 'i
On 21 Feb 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > In other words, if you don't have plenty of money, don't use Debian.
>
> FUD
>
> It just means that you can be as cutting edge as you feel comfortable
> with/can afford. Many other systems don't even give you that option.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In other words, if you don't have plenty of money, don't use Debian.
FUD
It just means that you can be as cutting edge as you feel comfortable
with/can afford. Many other systems don't even give you that option.
Also, CheapBytes sells a Debian CD for $2.99. I doubt
Craig writes:
> If you dont have a good net connection, I'd recommend getting a freshly
> burned CD with unstable on it once a month and upgrading from that.
In other words, if you don't have plenty of money, don't use Debian.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[E
On Feb 20, Rick Macdonald wrote
> I live off unstable all the time, and seem to have less problems
> than the average bear!
Be forewarned, after the release of Debian 1.3.x, we will be switching
to glibc 2.x, aka Linux libc 6. When that happens, the unstable tree
will definitely live up to it's n
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John T. Larkin) writes:
> >
> > > This was bad; everything linked with the x libraries couldn't run
> > > since they couldn't find the libraries. They had installed a bunch
> > > of X packages, so one of the packages should have b
On 20 Feb 1997, Guy Maor wrote:
> Daniel Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Since it seems like all the bug fixes go in unstable, isn't the
> > unstable stuff more stable than stable?
>
> All the new bugs go into stable too. Sometimes they are very bad.
I live off unstable all the time,
On 20 Feb 1997, Guy Maor wrote:
> Daniel Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Since it seems like all the bug fixes go in unstable, isn't the
> > unstable stuff more stable than stable?
>
> All the new bugs go into stable too. Sometimes they are very bad.
>
>
> Guy
I wish there was a di
Daniel Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since it seems like all the bug fixes go in unstable, isn't the
> unstable stuff more stable than stable?
All the new bugs go into stable too. Sometimes they are very bad.
Guy
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On 19 Feb 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John T. Larkin) writes:
> >
> > > This was bad; everything linked with the x libraries couldn't run
> > > since they couldn't find the libraries. They ha
22 matches
Mail list logo
