somebody said:
>>>systems every day. I've been doing it on about 10 systems for about 2
>>>years, and haven't had a lot of trouble; indeed once my mail servers
>>> went
>>>down for a few hours for that reason, but my mail servers are always
>>> looking
>>>for an excuse to go down.
Use ssh-agent, a
Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Wed, May 19, 2004 at 08:07:46PM -0400, David Gaudine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
and if ththeresroblem with MTMTApgrade ?:)
True, now and then I have to count the subject lines to make sure all
systems are accounted for. But it's still better than logging in to all the
sys
on Wed, May 19, 2004 at 08:07:46PM -0400, David Gaudine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > and if ththeresroblem with MTMTApgrade ?:)
>
> True, now and then I have to count the subject lines to make sure all
> systems are accounted for. But it's still better than logging in to all the
> systems every
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 10:19:29AM -0500, Michael Kahle wrote:
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:14 AM Colin Watson wrote:
I *strongly* recommend against upgrading by cron job. Just don't do
it; there are lots of ways it can break.
I have heard this m
> and if ththeresroblem with MTMTApgrade ?:)
True, now and then I have to count the subject lines to make sure all
systems are accounted for. But it's still better than logging in to all the
systems every day. I've been doing it on about 10 systems for about 2
years, and haven't had a lot of tro
--- David GaGaudinedadavidmemclaboconcordiaa> wrote:
> > I know that this is not recommended. But I often
> set up DeDebianachines
> > for "friends" who have virtually no clue
> whatsoever and no intentions
> > of changing this. The machines are obviously not
> very important but I
> > want to prov
> I know that this is not recommended. But I often set up Debian machines
> for "friends" who have virtually no clue whatsoever and no intentions
> of changing this. The machines are obviously not very important but I
> want to provide at least a minimal level of security because if I do not
> it w
>
> In my opinion semi-automaticaly updates sound scary
> itself...
>
> - Martin
I agree, and I never use it.
But still, even on manual updates , it can cause
problem.
cheers,
http://www.axeltabs.com/
__
axel
__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Ya
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 01:59:28PM -0700, Ping Wing wrote:
> > Upgrades require interaction from time to time, such
> > as conffile merges.
> > Even with packages that use debconf, the defaults
> > you get with the
> > noninteractive frontend aren't always what you want.
>
> well but lets assume i
> Upgrades require interaction from time to time, such
> as conffile merges.
> Even with packages that use debconf, the defaults
> you get with the
> noninteractive frontend aren't always what you want.
well but lets assume i have little router ticking
somewhere. only sshd listening.
If I configu
> Every Debian init.d script that starts a daemon says
> something like
> "Starting web server: apache."
>
some processes take long time to finish.
slurpd hangs sometime mystically or takes long to
finish.
I think it could cause probelms if I start it again
before its done.
some scripts are ok
On Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:42 AM Colin Watson wrote:
>On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 10:19:29AM -0500, Michael Kahle wrote:
>> Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:14 AM Colin Watson wrote:
>>> I *strongly* recommend against upgrading by cron job. Just don't do
>>> it; there are lots of ways it can break.
>>
>>
Incoming from Michael Kahle:
> Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:14 AM Colin Watson wrote:
> > I *strongly* recommend against upgrading by cron job. Just don't do
> > it; there are lots of ways it can break.
>
> I have heard this mentioned before. Could you elaborate? Why is this a
> problem? Please e
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 10:19:29AM -0500, Michael Kahle wrote:
> Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:14 AM Colin Watson wrote:
> > I *strongly* recommend against upgrading by cron job. Just don't do
> > it; there are lots of ways it can break.
>
> I have heard this mentioned before. Could you elaborate?
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:14 AM Colin Watson wrote:
> I *strongly* recommend against upgrading by cron job. Just don't do
> it; there are lots of ways it can break.
I have heard this mentioned before. Could you elaborate? Why is this a
problem? Please excuse my inexperience here.
Michael
--
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:14:12AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Ok, please forget _why_ I ask. The question remains - are the release
> > codenames equivalent to "stable"/"testing" in sources.list? I dont
>
> You can safely use the codenames.
Ok, thank you!
> > And Greg, please think of machin
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 01:38:33PM -0700, Ping Wing wrote:
> frankly, the fact that debian puts 'stable' in source.list
> automatically is littlebit scaring. For example when sarge is new
> stable one day, and im doing another (semi-)automatic apt-get upgrade,
> theres good chance that this messe
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:13:23AM +0200, Matthias Czapla wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 06:22:04PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 15:54, Matthias Czapla wrote:
> > > Can I safely use "woody" or "sarge" instead of stable and testing for
> > > the distribution specifier in /e
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 01:38:33PM -0700, Ping Wing wrote:
> Matthias Czapla wrote:
> > Can I safely use "woody" or "sarge" instead of stable and testing
> > for the distribution specifier in /etc/apt/sources.list or can this
> > cause trouble? Im afraid of an unwanted upgrade to a new
> > distribu
> Sarge *SUDDENLY* becoming Stable. Don't make me
> laugh.
>
> We aren't even into freeze yet.
>
> When that happens, then you should maybe worry about
> that.
it doesnt matter when it happen.
I must read news every day, be prepared to change all
my sources.list when it happens?
thing is that
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 06:22:04PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 15:54, Matthias Czapla wrote:
> > Can I safely use "woody" or "sarge" instead of stable and testing for
> > the distribution specifier in /etc/apt/sources.list or can this cause
> > trouble? Im afraid of an unwant
On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 15:54, Matthias Czapla wrote:
> Can I safely use "woody" or "sarge" instead of stable and testing for
> the distribution specifier in /etc/apt/sources.list or can this cause
> trouble? Im afraid of an unwanted upgrade to a new distribution when
> testing suddenly becomes stabl
> Can I safely use "woody" or "sarge" instead of
> stable and testing for
> the distribution specifier in /etc/apt/sources.list
> or can this cause
> trouble? Im afraid of an unwanted upgrade to a new
> distribution when
> testing suddenly becomes stable.
yes you can and imho it makse very much s
23 matches
Mail list logo
