On 25 Jun 1998, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Subject: please include apt and autoup in
hamm/hamm/upgrade-i386/ To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Package:
ftp.debian.org,apt,autoup Version: N/A
Well, let's just do it! I see no problem with making such a directory
for final hamm.
imo this
Andreas [EMAIL PROTECTED] filed this against ftp.debian.org:
Subject: please include apt and autoup in hamm/hamm/upgrade-i386/
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Package: ftp.debian.org,apt,autoup
Version: N/A
i think this is the right location. if people want to get all files they need
to install or
Jens == Jens Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jens Andreas [EMAIL PROTECTED] filed this against
Jens ftp.debian.org:
Subject: please include apt and autoup in
hamm/hamm/upgrade-i386/ To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Package:
ftp.debian.org,apt,autoup Version: N/A
i
Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
Interesting. Apparently, there's going to be coverage of these topics
in the release notes, not the install.sgml document.
Volunteers? I'm a bit overcommitted ;)
I wrote the autoup.sh README, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will be out of town after tomorrow for about a week, so I won't
be able to do anything on the README before then, but I don't think
2.0 will be released before then.
Perhaps not. Anyhow we should
At 16 Jun 1998 11:42:39 -0400, Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will be out of town after tomorrow for about a week, so I won't
be able to do anything on the README before then, but I don't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a README for autoup.sh on
{ftp|http}://debian.vicnet.net.au/autoup/.
Both the README and autoup.sh should have a separate (simplified)
version for use on the CD. (For instance, the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
(a) we need specific installation instructions for upgrading. Igor,
is this supposed to be part of the install.sgml document, or is it
separate?
(b) recommend for upgrades that users use *either* autoup.sh or, if
they are daring,
Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
(a) we need specific installation instructions for upgrading. Igor,
is this supposed to be part of the install.sgml document, or is it
separate?
(b) recommend for upgrades that users use
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
I noticed that apt is not yet in hamm. In my opinion, this is the
currently the single most important issue for hamm: unless we have
a real good reason, we should be focussing our efforts around putting
apt into hamm.
IMHO, the single most important
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
I noticed that apt is not yet in hamm. In my opinion, this is the
currently the single most important issue for hamm: unless we have
a real good reason, we should be focussing our efforts around putting
apt into hamm.
Remco Blaakmeer [EMAIL
On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 01:07:33AM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
[Yeah, it's new software -- it's also the best way to keep the hamm
upgrade from completely breaking an existing debian installation.]
The autoup.sh script also does the job well, doesn't it?
Not for new installs. Having things
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
: My personal opinion is that Apt is *already* the way to go.
Absolutely. 100% of the people I've suggested apt to (which is now almost
everyone in my circle of Debian friends) has switched to it for good. I have
had several people tell me that the apt
On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 12:59:49AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
: My personal opinion is that Apt is *already* the way to go.
Absolutely. 100% of the people I've suggested apt to (which is now almost
everyone in my circle of Debian friends) has
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 01:07:33AM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
[Yeah, it's new software -- it's also the best way to keep the hamm
upgrade from completely breaking an existing debian installation.]
The autoup.sh script also does the job well,
Some time around 14 Jun 1998 13:28:00 EDT,
Adam P. Harris wrote:
This issue has been addressed in some detail by the testing group. To
begin with, I must point out that some dpkg installation methods these
days do quite a nice job of package ordering on their own (I think
On 14 Jun 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
Finally, there are still some reports that apt segfaults for some
systems. Jason has done an excellent job of responding to these
issues as they arise, but it's natural there may be bugs yet in the
system. So I feel that droping the road-tested
I noticed that apt is not yet in hamm. In my opinion, this is the
currently the single most important issue for hamm: unless we have
a real good reason, we should be focussing our efforts around putting
apt into hamm.
[Yeah, it's new software -- it's also the best way to keep the hamm
upgrade
18 matches
Mail list logo
