On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Joey Hess wrote: > It's like this. You upgraded to a not-yet-released, beta quality version > of debian.
This I *now* know. Before upgrading I was given to understand that testing was a relatively problem-free upgrade to undertake -- not the rat's nest of incompatibilities and error-messages I ran into. > You seem to have done some pretty horrendous hacking to work > around dependancy problems, instead of reporting them: Why horrendous? Stuff broke. I fixed it. (For my own system.) And just how does one report a blanket suggestion that 452 system files be removed in one go? > > This I declined; and proceeded to (re-)install packages individually > > from an apt-get --just-print dist-upgrade list. > > And things broke. This is a suprise? Yes. Shouldn't it be? Please explain. (This is the method I have used to incrementally upgrade my installation for the past two years -- without problem.) Why should I expect things to break using this method? [This is a genuine query. Don't understand your stance. Really.] > This will all get fixed if you file sane bug reports on each item (sane > == including enough information for the developer to reproduce your > problem). If you just rant, you will be ignored. No -- I've already had a response from someone whose judgment and opinions I usually tend to respect :) (And ranting is good for the soul when you've just spent 10 days doing an almost total rebuild of a complex system. Thank your lucky stars you're not Andrew -- as my nearest developer contact, he had to put up with the phone calls every night.) But I doubt whether any developer could reproduce this system exactly without an accurate image of my machine state; so I'll start with the big problem (apache) and try to send in a fuller description of all the problems encountered once I've sussed how to do 'proper' bug reports, and where to send them. msw -- Martin Wheeler - StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England [1] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.startext.co.uk/