Hi Marcin, On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 06:31:16PM +0200, Marcin Dulak wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote: > > it would be nice if you would follow the list etiquette and not CC > > single authors. Thanks. > > OK, didn't know about that. Was just doing "replay all".
No problem, just telling you what is general policy at lists.debian.org. > > Again: In how far broken? In principle you can install packages from > > testing / unstable inside stable, specifically these Perl packages > > should not cause any harm (as long as there was no Perl migration). > > starting from https://atlas.hashicorp.com/deb/boxes/jessie-amd64 > $ sudo apt-get update > $ sudo apt-get -y upgrade > $ sudo sed -i 's/jessie/testing/g' /etc/apt/sources.list > $ sudo apt-get update > $ sudo apt-get -y dist-upgrade Hmmm, that's a bit much to simply fetch a few packages from testing. You should have checked man apt_preferences > Setting up udev (221-1+deb9u2) ... > Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/udev ... > Installing new version of config file /etc/init/udev-fallback-graphics.conf > ... > Installing new version of config file /etc/init/udev-finish.conf ... > Installing new version of config file /etc/init/udevmonitor.conf ... > Installing new version of config file /etc/udev/udev.conf ... > update-initramfs: deferring update (trigger activated) > Processing triggers for systemd (215-17+deb8u1) ... > Processing triggers for initramfs-tools (0.120) ... > update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-4-amd64 > cp: omitting directory ‘/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules’ > E: /usr/share/initramfs-tools/hooks/udev failed with return 1. > update-initramfs: failed for /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-4-amd64 with 1. > dpkg: error processing package initramfs-tools (--configure): > subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 > Errors were encountered while processing: > initramfs-tools > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) You might like to ask on a general user list how to cope with this. I have not experienced this on my testing upgrade and no good idea. > > I can't follow this arguing. You should build in a pbuilder / unstable > > environment and that's what all doc should recomment (sometimes instead > > of pbuilder sbuild is used - the principle is the same). If you spot an > > invalid doc please point the according author to this issue but you > > should be more specific about the problem of the doc. > > > > the point is that there are too many incomplete and scattered docs. > This is the result of everybody having typed slightly different commands on > their machines prior to the state described by the docs. > For example there are at least docs which mention how to "install" unstable: > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable#How_do_I_install_Sid.3F > https://wiki.debian.org/InstallFAQ#Q._How_do_I_install_.22unstable.22_.28.22sid.22.29.3F > The latter says (the former does not mention which commands one is supposed > to type): > "then again change your /etc/apt/sources.list file to unstable and again do > an update and a dist-upgrade" > This is incorrect for my https://atlas.hashicorp.com/deb/boxes/jessie-amd64 > VM: > $ sudo sed -i 's/testing/unstable/g' /etc/apt/sources.list > $ sudo apt-get update > /dev/null > W: Failed to fetch > http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable-updates/main/source/Sources > 404 Not Found [IP: 78.129.164.123 80] > W: Failed to fetch > http://security.debian.org/dists/unstable/updates/non-free/binary-amd64/Packages > 404 Not Found [IP: 195.20.242.89 80] > E: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones > used instead. That's unusual. > I understand that this is due to Debian unstable not providing certain > repository paths. Most probably not. May be a temporary failure of a single mirror or DNS. > > In any case I consider it sensible to package the latest version. > > I could imagine that we could add some text to README.source about > > the current upstream work regarding Python 3. > > can we proceed with gpaw-0.10.0, otherwise if we go for gpaw-0.11.0 one > needs to get python-ase-3.9.1 into Debian first. That's work in progress as you can read here in a recent mail. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
