> From: songb...@anthive.com
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> John Hasler wrote:
>> songbird writes:
>>> i"ve been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental
>>> for quite some time now.
>>
>> Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish.
> of course. :) it is not like
John Hasler wrote:
> songbird writes:
>> i've been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental
>> for quite some time now.
>
> Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish.
of course. :) it is not like i'm using a lot of
things from there. more like one or two items.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 06:52:13AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> tomas writes:
> > Big, heavily interdependent systems [...]
> I have full Perl and Python environments and I sometimes run CFD, FEM
> and CAD packages. I think that the key is that I scan
songbird writes:
> i've been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental
> for quite some time now.
Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish. Unstable
contains packages that the developer hopes and expects will migrate to
Testing and end up in Stable without incident,
tomas writes:
> Big, heavily interdependent systems consisting of lots of packages
> (big language environments à la Perl, Python, Java -- but most
> prominently big desktop environments) are especially vulnerable to
> version churn, which typically happens in testing once in its life
> cycle.
I h
Jason Cohen wrote:
...
> My question is how Debian Testing and Unstable compare in terms of
> stability. The Debian documentation suggests that Testing is more
> stable than Unstable because packages are delayed by 2-10 days and can
> only be promoted if no RC bugs are opened in that period [1].
> My experience, solely as a user, has been that sometimes the unstable
> distribution breaks and you're hosed. I can't remember when I was
> last burned by running testing.
I can't remember when I was last burned by Unstable. It is necessary to
follow debian-dev to know when not to upgrade. I
I can not help much in developing or bug analysis, so my contribution has been
to test
what is handed out to me for testing. I have yet not been able to contribute
much as
nothing seems to break in testing or sid (amd64 openbox/lxde) ever. Sometimes I
wonder when I read the list or archives thing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:24:08PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Jimmy Johnson writes:
> > From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before
> > making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security
> > updates (in the form
My experience, solely as a user, has been that sometimes the unstable
distribution breaks and you're hosed. I can't remember when I was last
burned by running testing.
On 07/05/2017 07:24 PM, John Hasler wrote:
Jimmy Johnson writes:
From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before
making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security
updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more
likely to be consistent duri
Jimmy Johnson writes:
> From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before
> making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security
> updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more
> likely to be consistent during transitions.
Unstable is not requir
On 07/05/2017 05:17 PM, Jason Cohen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I've been using Debian for a number of years, but my experience has
typically been with servers where I have used the Stable branch for its
reliability and security support. However, I recently began usin
On 7/5/17 8:17 PM, Jason Cohen wrote:
> I've been using Debian for a number of years, but my experience has
> typically been with servers where I have used the Stable branch for its
> reliability and security support. However, I recently began using
> Debian Stretch for my desktop and foresee a ne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I've been using Debian for a number of years, but my experience has
typically been with servers where I have used the Stable branch for its
reliability and security support. However, I recently began using
Debian Stretch for my desktop and foresee a
On 2004-06-25, Brian Astill penned:
>
> And Monique and others think this is simple???
When did I say that?
If you're referring purely to the naming conventions, I agree that
they're confusing, but no one's been able to come up with a better way
to handle it. Usually, the people proposing new
means. That's something,
little though it is.
And I _think_ the third point release has been put off because of
sarge.
So ... ??
Look, the issue WAS "testing" vs "unstable". Some people think that not
only the decision but its implementation is a simple matter. It is
3.0rn means. That's something,
little though it is.
> And I _think_ the third point release has been put off because of
> sarge.
So ... ??
Look, the issue WAS "testing" vs "unstable". Some people think that not
only the decision but its implementation is a simpl
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:05:32PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> atm it seems impossible to get bugs fixed in Woody unless they're
> security-related. I know, someone's going to ask for an eg, and right
> now I can't think of one.
Of course there are bugs discovered which a lot of people woul
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:12:06PM -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:35:48 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>
> > No, but [Red Hat] were always a company looking to make money off
> > of their product (not that there's anything wrong with that). Debian
> > has no such plans, and
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-06-24, John Summerfield penned:
Its only since its IPO that RH has become money-hungry. I am
comfortable with the notion of paid-for support in the way of
security advisories and bug-fixes: the only matter for debate is cost.
Well, if I understood you earl
On 2004-06-24, John Summerfield penned:
>
> Its only since its IPO that RH has become money-hungry. I am
> comfortable with the notion of paid-for support in the way of
> security advisories and bug-fixes: the only matter for debate is cost.
Well, if I understood you earlier, you have paying cli
On 2004-06-24, John Summerfield penned:
>
> Oh? Isn't Sarge to be released as 3.1?
>
> I'm pretty sire that the standard kernel with woody is 2.2 though 2.4
> is tolerated. I say "tolerated" because 2.2 is recommended.
>
> According to the Monique theory, if Sarge is released as 3.1 then it
> shoul
Simon Kitching wrote:
I can (and used to) install RHL 7.3 on arbitrary local-computershop
hardware in fifteen minutes, fully automated.
I gather the name Ian Murdock has some significance here, and that he's
connected to Progeny. Here's what Progeny says, "Red Hat's® Anaconda is
the standard i
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
Yes, but there's no way to test those backports thoroughly enough to
match the amount of testing that went into stable in the first place.
Do you believe that?
The point of stable is not just that each package has been
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 12:58, John Summerfield wrote:
> >
> >>fwiw I was much amused when I first tried Knoppix (it was, I think, a
> >>3.2 beta but it might have been 3.1). The hardware detection is done
> >>with Red Hat's tools.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Why be amused? If RedHat licenses their stuff
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
David Fokkema wrote:
Please, no. Debian stable is rock solid, something RedHat, in my
opinion, has never been able to achieve. I would love to hear from
people who are still running a RedHat system older than two years. I
know
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-06-23, Ernie McCracken penned:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:35:48 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
where I work we still have a 7.0 box in place: I chose 7.0 over 7.1
so as to have a 2.2 kernel as standard (required for a sat card).
It
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:35:48 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> No, but [Red Hat] were always a company looking to make money off
> of their product (not that there's anything wrong with that). Debian
> has no such plans, and that's one of the reasons why I trust them to do
> what's right rather t
On 2004-06-23, Goedson Paixao penned:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:40:54 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama
>> Now I'm confused. A search through packages.debian.org turns up
>> gpg4pine and pine-docs, not to mention something called pine-tracker
>> that appears to be a way to check your installed version of p
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-06-23, Travis Crump penned:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
I have been to www.apt-get.org and I got Mozilla from here, pine from
there, KDE from somewhere else, Xfree from another... Do you get the
picture?
Well, just to be pedan
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:40:54 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama
> Now I'm confused. A search through packages.debian.org turns up
> gpg4pine and pine-docs, not to mention something called pine-tracker
> that appears to be a way to check your installed version of pine against
> the official version ... but
On 2004-06-23, Ernie McCracken penned:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:35:48 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > where I work we still have a 7.0 box in place: I chose 7.0 over 7.1
>> > so as to have a 2.2 kernel as standard (required for a sat card).
>>
>> It seems odd to me to c
> UPGRADE FROM PREVIOUS RELEASES
> Because Red Hat Linux Release 4.2 is built with advanced RPM
> technology, your system will never become obsolete. As new
> releases become available you can upgrade any or all of your
> components to the newest versions using a simple upgrade program
>
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:35:48 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > where I work we still have a 7.0 box in place: I chose 7.0 over 7.1 so
> > as to have a 2.2 kernel as standard (required for a sat card).
>
> It seems odd to me to choose a release based on the kernel, but okay.
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 02:32, John Summerfield wrote:
> Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
[...]
> >And the dot-oh releases were well known to be buggy piles of crap.
> >There was always some nasty gotcha lurking in the system. I don't
> > know why that was the case, but it definitely held true from at
>
On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
> David Fokkema wrote:
>
>
>>Please, no. Debian stable is rock solid, something RedHat, in my
>>opinion, has never been able to achieve. I would love to hear from
>>people who are still running a RedHat system older than two years. I
>>know of a lot of people
On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
>>
>>Yes, but there's no way to test those backports thoroughly enough to
>>match the amount of testing that went into stable in the first place.
>
> Do you believe that?
The point of stable is not just that each package has been tested to the nth
degree, it
On (23/06/04 08:40), Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> On 2004-06-23, Travis Crump penned:
> >
> > Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> >> On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
> >>
> >>>I have been to www.apt-get.org and I got Mozilla from here, pine from
> >>>there, KDE from somewhere else, Xfree from another
On 2004-06-23, Travis Crump penned:
>
> Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>> On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
>>
>>>I have been to www.apt-get.org and I got Mozilla from here, pine from
>>>there, KDE from somewhere else, Xfree from another... Do you get the
>>>picture?
>>
>>
>> Well, just to be p
>>The cycles are too short. RedHat's and some other's, that is.
This has been an interesting thread for us newbies. There seems to be no
clear "right answers". Rather, Debian provides several good choices so
that you can choose what flavor best suits your needs.
I was hot on Red Hat and then Fe
David Fokkema wrote:
The problem is someone deploying stable _now_ has a little over a year,
someone deploying stable in two years can expect two years of life...
The cycles are too long.
If the cycles were shorter, people would install systems which would be
outdated in less than six mon
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 06:32:08AM +, John Summerfield wrote:
> Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>
> >On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
> >
> >
> >>I have been to www.apt-get.org and I got Mozilla from here, pine from
> >>there, KDE from somewhere else, Xfree from another... Do you get the
> >
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:10:11AM +, John Summerfield wrote:
> David Fokkema wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:01:20PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Indeed. I actually meant my statement to be in support of the stable
> >>>di
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
I have been to www.apt-get.org and I got Mozilla from here, pine from
there, KDE from somewhere else, Xfree from another... Do you get the
picture?
Well, just to be pedantic, you wouldn't find pine anywhere in debian
because
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
I have been to www.apt-get.org and I got Mozilla from here, pine from
there, KDE from somewhere else, Xfree from another... Do you get the
picture?
Well, just to be pedantic, you wouldn't find pine anywhere in debian
because of its
On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
>
> I have been to www.apt-get.org and I got Mozilla from here, pine from
> there, KDE from somewhere else, Xfree from another... Do you get the
> picture?
Well, just to be pedantic, you wouldn't find pine anywhere in debian
because of its licensing terms.
David Fokkema wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:01:20PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
Indeed. I actually meant my statement to be in support of the stable
distribution. I guess I should have made that clearer.
Still, no one benefits from having blinders over thei
On Tuesday 22 June 2004 17:00, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> Unstable: "parts are frequently broken but quickly fixed"
>
> Testing: "parts are broken less often, but when they are, it can take
> months to fix them"
>
> Stable: "nothing is broken, but you won't be able to play with the
> latest gizm
On 2004-06-22, Adam Funk penned:
> On Monday 21 June 2004 22:00, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>
>> If I remember correctly, "unstable" is called "unstable" because the
>> packages go through a large amount of turnover and you'll usually
>> have to upgrade a few times per week to keep your system in sync.
>
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:13:37AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
| I've been watching the various discussions on this, and note that most
| experienced types think that the unstable distribution is better than the
| testing distribution. This leads me to one more question / observation
Unst
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:35:09AM -0500, Gayle Lee Fairless wrote:
> How hard will it be to switch or upgrade to sarge from woody when sarge
> becomes stable? I'm hoping that CUPS and other stuff in sarge will let me
> use my parallel port HP 697C printer and my HP psc1210
> printer/scanner/co
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, David Fokkema wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:01:20PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> > Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> >
> > >Indeed. I actually meant my statement to be in support of the stable
> > >distribution. I guess I should have made that clearer.
> > >
> > >Still,
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:01:20PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>
> >Indeed. I actually meant my statement to be in support of the stable
> >distribution. I guess I should have made that clearer.
> >
> >Still, no one benefits from having blinders over their eyes. St
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
Indeed. I actually meant my statement to be in support of the stable
distribution. I guess I should have made that clearer.
Still, no one benefits from having blinders over their eyes. Stable is
the most stable, and it's also the least current. I don't see how it
could
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:17:49 -0400, John Cichy wrote:
> Jules Dubois wrote:
>
>> I think perhaps "stable", "testing", and "unstable" were not the
>> absolutely, positively best choices for the flavors but I can't say I
>> could have done any better. These comments are however immaterial.
Oops.
On Monday 21 June 2004 22:00, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> If I remember correctly, "unstable" is called "unstable" because the
> packages go through a large amount of turnover and you'll usually have
> to upgrade a few times per week to keep your system in sync.
Now that's interesting. The name "unst
On 2004-06-21, Kent West penned:
> Michael Satterwhite wrote:
>
>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On Monday 21 June 2004 12:03, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you're trying to avoid any downtime or difficulty whatsoever, run
>>>stable and live with the age of the packages
On 2004-06-22, Jules Dubois penned:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:38:51 -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
>
>> On Monday 21 June 2004 12:03, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>>> If you're trying to avoid any downtime or difficulty whatsoever, run
>>> stable and live with the age of the packages.
>>
>> Not exac
On 2004-06-21, Michael Satterwhite penned:
>
> On Monday 21 June 2004 12:03, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>> If you're trying to avoid any downtime or difficulty whatsoever, run
>> stable and live with the age of the packages.
>
> Not exactly promoting Debian, are we? Especially in a Linux world
> wh
Jules Dubois wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:38:51 -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
On Monday 21 June 2004 12:03, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
If you're trying to avoid any downtime or difficulty whatsoever, run
stable and live with the age of the packages.
Not exactly promoting Debian, are we?
She i
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:38:51 -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> On Monday 21 June 2004 12:03, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>> If you're trying to avoid any downtime or difficulty whatsoever, run
>> stable and live with the age of the packages.
>
> Not exactly promoting Debian, are we?
She is. Debi
Michael Satterwhite wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 21 June 2004 12:03, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
If you're trying to
avoid any downtime or difficulty whatsoever, run stable and live with
the age of the packages.
Not exactly promoting Debian, are we? Especially
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 21 June 2004 15:44, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> If I remember correctly, "unstable" is called "unstable" because the
> packages go through a large amount of turnover and you'll usually have
> to upgrade a few times per week to keep your system in
If I remember correctly, "unstable" is called "unstable" because the
packages go through a large amount of turnover and you'll usually have
to upgrade a few times per week to keep your system in sync.
In my experience, "unstable" is actually very stable for my desktop
uses. And its a whole lot eas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 21 June 2004 12:03, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> If you're trying to
> avoid any downtime or difficulty whatsoever, run stable and live with
> the age of the packages.
Not exactly promoting Debian, are we? Especially in a Linux world where th
On 2004-06-20, Michael Satterwhite penned:
>
> I'll take this for one vote that testing is actually a better choice
> than unstable.
No. You said that you read the arguments for and against testing and
unstable. If so, you know that if a bug gets through to testing, it can
be there for months --
Michael Satterwhite wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 20 June 2004 18:44, richard lyons wrote:
On Sunday 20 June 2004 16:10, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
[...]
Although I've had to use Windows at some client sites, my personal
machines have been essentially MS fre
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:15:59 -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:47, Chris Metzler wrote:
>> What you're not aware of is that something similar happened last year with
>> KDE in testing. More specifically, last year, KDE was uninstallable
>> in testing for *several month
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:13:37 -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> I've been watching the various discussions on this, and note that most
> experienced types think that the unstable distribution is better than
> the testing distribution. This leads me to one more question /
> observation
It happene
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 01:01:01PM -0400, Curt Howland wrote:
> Michael Satterwhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the KDE distribution in
> unstable
> > simply would not run ...
>
> I was effected by this as well, yet not effected at all. This is where
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 04:37:12PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 02:35:32PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, unstable does indeed break sometimes, sometimes seriously so. But
> > in the five or so years I've been running Debian, I've seen far less
> > breakage on Debia
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:10:30PM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:25, Kent West wrote:
> >
> > In the meantime, use something other than KDE, such as Gnome, icewm,
> > wmaker, fluxbox, ion, twm, sawfish, saffire, xf
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:25:30AM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> Michael Satterwhite wrote:
>
> >A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the KDE distribution in unstable
> >simply would not run. I've noted several of the messages recommending the
> >unstable branch say that there were some updates
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:11:35PM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:40, David Fokkema wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:22:57AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:22:57AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:16, Carl Fink wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:13:37AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> > > A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the KDE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 20 June 2004 18:44, richard lyons wrote:
> On Sunday 20 June 2004 16:10, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Although I've had to use Windows at some client sites, my personal
> > machines have been essentially MS free for over a year. S
On Sunday 20 June 2004 16:10, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
[...]
>
> Although I've had to use Windows at some client sites, my personal
> machines have been essentially MS free for over a year. Some
> exceptions, there - I can't live without Quicken / Quickbooks
[...]
Look at sql-ledger. You migh
On Sunday 20 June 2004 12:48, Carl Fink wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:22:57AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> > Certainly I can turn off KDE; cripples KDevelop which is needed,
> > but can be done easily.
>
> Cripples how? I run Konqueror without any other KDE component.
> Granted it sti
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 02:35:32PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
>
> Yes, unstable does indeed break sometimes, sometimes seriously so. But
> in the five or so years I've been running Debian, I've seen far less
> breakage on Debian unstable boxes than on Windows boxes (and much, much,
> much more re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 20 June 2004 14:35, Kent West wrote:
> I run stable on my important boxes, like servers, that need to be up
> 24x7, and I run unstable on my workstations. I have less pain on
> unstable workstations with their occasional breakages than I do o
Michael Satterwhite wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:25, Kent West wrote:
In the meantime, use something other than KDE, such as Gnome, icewm,
wmaker, fluxbox, ion, twm, sawfish, saffire, xfce, qvwm etc etc etc.
That works for KDE, but what abou
Michael Satterwhite wrote:
On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:47, Chris Metzler wrote:
You're right that this happened recently with KDE in unstable. What
you're not aware of is that something similar happened last year with
KDE in testing. More specifically, last year, KDE was uninstallable
in testing
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 02:24:45PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
> David Fokkema wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:22:57AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> >
> >>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >>Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >>On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:16, Carl Fink wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, Jun 20, 20
David Fokkema wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:22:57AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:16, Carl Fink wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:13:37AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the K
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:10:30 -0500
Michael Satterwhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:25, Kent West wrote:
>>
>> In the meantime, use something other than KDE, such as Gnome, icewm,
>> wmaker, fluxbox, ion, twm, sawfish, saffire, xfce, qvwm etc etc etc.
>
> That works for KD
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:15:59 -0500
Michael Satterwhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:47, Chris Metzler wrote:
> > You're right that this happened recently with KDE in unstable. What
> > you're not aware of is that something similar happened last year with
> > KDE in testin
Michael Satterwhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the KDE distribution in
unstable
> simply would not run ...
I was effected by this as well, yet not effected at all. This is where
doing things by hand comes in very handy.
When I ran dselect, it reporte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:47, Chris Metzler wrote:
> You're right that this happened recently with KDE in unstable. What
> you're not aware of is that something similar happened last year with
> KDE in testing. More specifically, last year, KDE was u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:40, David Fokkema wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:22:57AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:16, Carl Fink wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 20,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:25, Kent West wrote:
>
> In the meantime, use something other than KDE, such as Gnome, icewm,
> wmaker, fluxbox, ion, twm, sawfish, saffire, xfce, qvwm etc etc etc.
That works for KDE, but what about the reported problems whe
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:22:57AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> Certainly I can turn off KDE; cripples KDevelop which is needed, but can be
> done easily.
Cripples how? I run Konqueror without any other KDE component.
Granted it still loads a lot of KDE and QT libraries, but it isn't
"c
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:13:37 -0500
Michael Satterwhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've been watching the various discussions on this, and note that most
> experienced types think that the unstable distribution is better than
> the testing distribution. This leads me to one more question /
> ob
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:22:57AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:16, Carl Fink wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:13:37AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> > > A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the KDE
Michael Satterwhite wrote:
A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the KDE distribution in unstable
simply would not run. I've noted several of the messages recommending the
unstable branch say that there were some updates that caused the receiving
machines to crash / lock / not start.
How do
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:13:37AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've been watching the various discussions on this, and note that most
> experienced types think that the unstable distribution is better than the
> testing distribution. Th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 20 June 2004 11:16, Carl Fink wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:13:37AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
> > A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the KDE distribution in
> > unstable simply would not run ...
> >
> > How does one recov
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:13:37AM -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
>
> A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the KDE distribution in unstable
> simply would not run ...
> How does one recover from something like this short of doing a reload?
Don't run KDE for a week or so until it's fixe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been watching the various discussions on this, and note that most
experienced types think that the unstable distribution is better than the
testing distribution. This leads me to one more question / observation
A few weeks ago (I don't know abo
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 09:25:12AM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> Adam Funk wrote:
>
> >So are there any practical disadvantages to running unstable instead of
> >testing?
> >
> A couple of years ago a bug found its way into PAM in unstable, and
> caused a lot of unstable users to be unable to log in
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
