On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:11:27PM +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> The only thing I'd add here is that in this case, I'd create a dummy
> Debian package with no contents but an appropriate version number and
> dependencies, and install it, so the system knows it is there and the
> dependent librar
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 08:51:10AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:51:20AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > No, stop. The second step if there is not already a backport is to try
> > to backport it yourself. Maybe ask judd in IRC first, whether a backport
> > is believe
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:51:20AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> No, stop. The second step if there is not already a backport is to try
> to backport it yourself. Maybe ask judd in IRC first, whether a backport
> is believed to be *possible*. Sometimes the bot is wrong, but it's a
> starting poi
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:52:37PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> The best way to achieve this is to use backports, if one exists for the
> packages you are interested in.
>
> Failing that, it's possible that the version of the package in testing or
> unstable can be installed on your stable sys
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:07:48PM -0500, David Niklas wrote:
> What I'm trying to do is to avoid running pieces unstable or testing
> software (except for the package I asked for (such as nano)), while
> still having a few newer packages.
The best way to achieve this is to use backports, if one e
5 matches
Mail list logo
