On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Mostafa Shahverdy wrote:
> Few while ago I tried upgrading to unstable and I could update all my packages
> successfully. Now I'm going to use stable version. I am following only
> stable repository and each time I hit `apt-get dist-upgrade` it
On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 06:30:03AM +0330, Mostafa Shahverdy wrote:
> > Yes. I am assuming you made a new stable installation, you have not
> > just changed the repository from unstable to stable. That will most
> > definitely not work.
> >
> > Are you asking why only a few packages are upgraded, c
Mostafa Shahverdy wrote:
> I believe unstable was `buster` and my current installed packages are
> from `buster`. I know that most my packages are ahead, but what about
> like 10 month from now that `buster` becomes stable?
cat /etc/debian_version
9.1
is stretch
I would suggest keep the name bust
> It is not exactly clear what "while ago" means. For example if you were
> using unstable=stretch when stable=jessie and then switched to stable, when
> stable=stretch it sounds reasonable.
> If it is not the case, which is not very likely as you still get updates,
> the versions of the packages w
> Yes. I am assuming you made a new stable installation, you have not
> just changed the repository from unstable to stable. That will most
> definitely not work.
>
> Are you asking why only a few packages are upgraded, compared to
> unstable?
>
> Stable should not need many upgrades. In unstable
Mostafa Shahverdy wrote:
> Few while ago I tried upgrading to unstable and I could update all my
> packages successfully. Now I'm going to use stable version. I am following
> only stable repository and each time I hit `apt-get dist-upgrade` it
> successfully upgrades few package
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 19:55:22 +0330
Mostafa Shahverdy wrote:
> Few while ago I tried upgrading to unstable and I could update all my
> packages successfully. Now I'm going to use stable version. I am
> following only stable repository and each time I hit `apt-get
> dist-upgrade
Any kind of help is already appreciated :)
On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 07:55:21PM +0330, Mostafa Shahverdy wrote:
> Few while ago I tried upgrading to unstable and I could update all my packages
> successfully. Now I'm going to use stable version. I am following only
> stable repository
Few while ago I tried upgrading to unstable and I could update all my packages
successfully. Now I'm going to use stable version. I am following only
stable repository and each time I hit `apt-get dist-upgrade` it
successfully upgrades few packages.
Is this a safe way to stick with s
On May 20 2005, Frank Copeland wrote:
> Testing is almost-but-not-quite bleeding-edge and that's good enough for
> me.
Furthermore, more people should be using testing at any time to see if it
has any bugs that would prevent it from being released. Remember: testing
was/is meant to be next to a re
On 19 May 05 15:04:10 GMT, Alberto Bert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> after reading the FAQ at:
>
> http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/debian_choosing_distribution.html
>
> I'm upgrading from sarge to unstable...
After reading this I'm not convinced to do the same. The main argument
for pre
On Thursday May 19 2005 8:04 am, Alberto Bert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after reading the FAQ at:
>
> http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/debian_choosing_distribut
>ion.html
>
> I'm upgrading from sarge to unstable...
>
> I'm pretty scared, so it would be nice to have some help from the
> list...
Rig
ist...
If you're scared about upgrading to unstable, then I wouldn't do it.
Unstable (sid) can break unexpectedly and you'll have to manually fix it
when it does.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:16:29 -0400
Ernst Doubt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd have installed apt-listbugs prior, but it's not a guarantee against
> breakage (though it does allow you to possibly prevent some buggy
> packages from being installed).
Apt-listbugs still gives me errors even with
Alberto Bert wrote:
Hi,
after reading the FAQ at:
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/debian_choosing_distribution.html
I'm upgrading from sarge to unstable...
I'm pretty scared, so it would be nice to have some help from the
list...
In doing it I'm using aptitude. I just saied it to U all th
Hi,
after reading the FAQ at:
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/debian_choosing_distribution.html
I'm upgrading from sarge to unstable...
I'm pretty scared, so it would be nice to have some help from the
list...
In doing it I'm using aptitude. I just saied it to U all the Upgrade
packa
Hi:
I burned two dvd's this week of the unstable distribution. I was
upgrading from testing but ran into trouble with foomati-db,
foomatic-bin and similar packages because of some dependency problem.
I see from google that last year people had had trouble with this, but
my office machine wo
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:47:40PM -0500, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> I'm using pinning and I can't find ought how to use dselect to select
> packages that should track unstable. I would also like to select
> packages that, if able, should track testing/stable.
>
> Is there another gui that might deal
I'm using pinning and I can't find ought how to use dselect to select
packages that should track unstable. I would also like to select
packages that, if able, should track testing/stable.
Is there another gui that might deal better with pinning?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Are you using apt pinning? If so, this is a prime example of why the
> developers tell you *not* to do this unless you have a fairly firm
> understanding of what's going on and are willing to track at least the
> announcements for all versions invol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 11:17:28PM +0800, Arne Goetje wrote:
> Ok, now it works. I upgraded all dependency packages for kmail to the latest
> versions, although kmail doesn't 'require' it. I don't know which one of
> them did the trick, but now it wo
On April 1, 2003 06:11 pm, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> You'll probably have much better luck using the unofficial native woody
> packages of KDE 3.1. See http://www.apt-get.org/, which will refer you
> to:
> deb http://download.us.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/latest/Debian/ woody main
Thanks everyone for t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 03 April 2003 11:47, Leo Spalteholz wrote:
> On April 2, 2003 03:33 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:06:58PM +0800, Arne Goetje wrote:
> > > when did you upgrad
Great, thanks.
I read the thread.
Kevin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 08:49:37AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/msg01644.html
That's the one. I remember it spilling over into debian-user, though
oddly enough it doesn't show that in the
On April 2, 2003 03:33 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:06:58PM +0800, Arne Goetje wrote:
> > when did you upgrade? I tried it on saturday with the deb from
> > ftp.debian.org. 3.1.1-1 AFAIK...
>
> That's the version installed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Any thought of using the KDE3.1 for woody from KDE?
apt-get sources.list line:
deb http://download.us.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/latest/Debian/ woody main
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+i3fPajFD3wrWXs8RAvWVAJ4ykD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 02:37:03 -0800
> Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'd also go re-read the long "The Myth of Apt Pinning" thread that ran
>> a while back. One of the DDs speaks out against pinning, essentially
>> considering it harmful. Consider yourself
Levi,
I've been using it for 2 weeks now without any issues whatsoever.
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Levi Waldron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: upgrading to unstable KDE
I'm running Woody right now, but am
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 09:14:26AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Was that on this list or another.
I'm pretty sure it was. I remember having to use thread-delete on it
after I got tired of it...I recall it being a rather long thread.
- --
.''`
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 02:37:03 -0800
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd also go re-read the long "The Myth of Apt Pinning" thread that ran
> a while back. One of the DDs speaks out against pinning, essentially
> considering it harmful. Consider yourself warned if you *really* want
> to r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:06:58PM +0800, Arne Goetje wrote:
> when did you upgrade? I tried it on saturday with the deb from
> ftp.debian.org. 3.1.1-1 AFAIK...
That's the version installed here...4:3.1.1-1...
- --
.''`. Baloo Ursidae <[EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 02 April 2003 18:32, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 05:31:23PM +0800, Arne Goetje wrote:
> > The libc is not that problem. The major problem is, that kmail in sid
> > is unusable in the moment.
>
> Really? I'm pretty sure t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 03:12:32AM -0600, Rob VanFleet wrote:
> That being said, you'll probably run into a few false starts during the
> dist-upgrade - few conflicting packages that need to be tweaked manually
> or temporarily removed with dpkg (some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 05:31:23PM +0800, Arne Goetje wrote:
> The libc is not that problem. The major problem is, that kmail in sid is
> unusable in the moment.
Really? I'm pretty sure that was recently fixed. I just checked,
kmail runs on my box
Paul Johnson wrote:
> I think it's linked to a newer libc than is in woody. Upgrading KDE
> would result in upgrading libc, which results in upgrading...hmm,
> could someone tell me what isn't dependant on libc again?
First off you need to have graphviz from unstable, backported is fine
and works
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 02 April 2003 16:48, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 05:20:44PM -0500, Levi Waldron wrote:
> > I'm running Woody right now, but am tempted to dselect-upgrade KDE to
> > the 3.10 in unstable (because of the improvements to kma
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 05:20:44PM -0500, Levi Waldron wrote:
> I'm running Woody right now, but am tempted to dselect-upgrade KDE to the
> 3.10 in unstable (because of the improvements to kmail). Any thoughts
> on the potential pain/painlessness of this upgrade, before I try it? If
> there's
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:48:55AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 05:20:44PM -0500, Levi Waldron wrote:
> > I'm running Woody right now, but am tempted to dselect-upgrade KDE
> > to the 3.10 in unstable (because of the improvements to kmail). Any
> > thoughts on the potential
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 05:20:44PM -0500, Levi Waldron wrote:
> I'm running Woody right now, but am tempted to dselect-upgrade KDE to the
> 3.10 in unstable (because of the improvements to kmail). Any thoughts
> on the potential pain/painlessness of
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 05:20:44PM -0500, Levi Waldron wrote:
> I'm running Woody right now, but am tempted to dselect-upgrade KDE to the
> 3.10 in unstable (because of the improvements to kmail). Any thoughts
> on the potential pain/painlessness of this upgrade, before I try it? If
> there's
I'm running Woody right now, but am tempted to dselect-upgrade KDE to the
3.10 in unstable (because of the improvements to kmail). Any thoughts
on the potential pain/painlessness of this upgrade, before I try it? If
there's a fair chance of having to spend a lot of time fixing a broken
system
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:24:07AM +0100, Eric Smith wrote:
> According to Andras BALI on Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:13:29PM +0100:
> > The archive is just being updated, therefore it may happen that the
> > Packages file is new, but the new files it refers to are not yet
> > downloaded. Check back la
According to Andras BALI on Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:13:29PM +0100:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 10:43:34PM +0100, Eric Smith wrote:
>
> > Err http://ftp.nl.debian.org unstable/main binutils 2.11.92.0.10-3
> > 404 Not Found
>
> The reason is:
>
> $ ncftpls ftp://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ | head -1
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 10:43:34PM +0100, Eric Smith wrote:
> Err http://ftp.nl.debian.org unstable/main binutils 2.11.92.0.10-3
> 404 Not Found
The reason is:
$ ncftpls ftp://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ | head -1
Archive-Update-in-Progress-open.hands.com
$
The archive is just being updated, th
I am upgrading as follows:
deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main non-free contrib
I tried to install firstly debconf and apt-options and got this:
Err http://ftp.nl.debian.org unstable/main binutils
On Wednesday 07 March 2001 01:22, Joey Hess wrote:
> William Leese wrote:
> > Setting up debconf (0.9.10) ...
> > dpkg: error processing debconf (--configure):
> > subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 10
> > Errors were encountered while processing:
> > debconf
> >
William Leese wrote:
> Setting up debconf (0.9.10) ...
> dpkg: error processing debconf (--configure):
> subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 10
> Errors were encountered while processing:
> debconf
>
>
> This doesnt help me much. Anyone who can help me with this?
Hi all,
I just dist-upgraded to unstable from woody and i am running into a few
problems. The cause of these problems seem to be because i cant get debconf
configured and set-up.
This is what i get:
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of lilo:
lilo depends on debconf (>= 0.2.2
To quote "Colin Cashman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
# I recently installed Debian on my laptop, but some of the programs I
was planning on using exist only in unstable (for instance,
# Enlightenment 0.16.5).
If you only want a limited number of newer packages(I'd say less than 20
or 30), you can do the
> Are you sure you want Enlightenment? It eats a lot of memory...
It's the one I'm most familiar with, and my laptop has 128MB of memory + 256MB
swap, so I'm not /overly/ concerned about the memory
usage.
However, after having read about some of the other window manglers, I'm
probably going to
Colin Cashman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/02/2001 (16:35) :
> I recently installed Debian on my laptop, but some of the programs I
> was planning on using exist only in unstable (for instance,
> Enlightenment 0.16.5).
Are you sure you want Enlightenment? It eats a lot of memory...
>
> What a
I've upgraded to unstable over a period of time.libc first, then
X yesterday. Its been pretty stable so far, but you never know, you may
run into some upgrade problems with your hardware (took me a while to get
the X upgraded properly so it was usable).
Overall you should be alright, I think.
A
I recently installed Debian on my laptop, but some of the programs I was
planning on using exist only in unstable (for instance,
Enlightenment 0.16.5).
What are the dangers in upgrading my system to run unstable? What issues am I
likely to face if I do upgrade the whole thing to
unstable? Would
--
dpk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Systems/Network | work: 353.4844
Division of Engineering Computing Services | page: 222.5875
On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Brian Skreeg wrote:
>
> Upgrading to unstable used to be easy. Login, get list, choose
> yer kit, install. Play. Lovely.
&
Upgrading to unstable used to be easy. Login, get list, choose
yer kit, install. Play. Lovely.
The current unstable tree seems impossible to me to upgrade to without
horrid dependancy stuff creeping in everywhere. My main problem seems
to be with lib6g+ (or something similar), tk4.2 (I
56 matches
Mail list logo
