As I expected, several others have already filed bug reports on this
problem.
Tom
Bob Hilliard wrote:
>
> Tom Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is getting away from the thread's original subject, but the new
> > lilo package that did make it into woody (21.6-2) *is* broken as far a
Tom Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is getting away from the thread's original subject, but the new
> lilo package that did make it into woody (21.6-2) *is* broken as far as
> I'm concerned. It replaces your /etc/lilo.conf with it's own (wrong)
> idea of what should be there, even if yo
> c) Upgrade to Woody(testing). Woody is the new "in-between"
> distribution, which is supposed to be more stable then Sid. For
> instance, the broken LILO package never made it into Woody.
This is getting away from the thread's original subject, but the new
lilo package that did make it into wood
To quote Marcial Zamora III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
# hey all.. I know this mite stir up a great deal of debate, but its not
my intention.. Im currently running potato, and thinking bout running
unstable.. there are quite a few packages I would like to have in
unstable, and I know ahead of time, to su
Marcial Zamora III wrote:
>
> hey all.. I know this mite stir up a great deal of debate, but its not my
> intention.. Im currently running potato, and thinking bout running unstable..
> there are quite a few packages I would like to have in unstable, and I know
> ahead of time, to successfully
hey all.. I know this mite stir up a great deal of debate, but its not my
intention.. Im currently running potato, and thinking bout running unstable..
there are quite a few packages I would like to have in unstable, and I know
ahead of time, to successfully install those packages, there are oth
6 matches
Mail list logo
