Re: AMD vs. Intel
We've been 100% AMD for 5 years now, and we have seen no such problems. And all we do is file and application servers, where IO is king ;-) For reference, we use Asus motherboards. On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 12:44:48PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > I am a huge fan of AMD, not only because their processors are > cheaper. > > Recently, however, I have experienced random crashes on two machines > that run AMDs. The crashes seem to be related to IO and happen > usually when there is a lot of disk activity. The disks themselves > are fine, though, and also the controller appears without problems. > > Thus I am logically considering chipset and processor. I can hardly > imagine that this is a problem with AMD, but I would like to know > from you success and failure stories of AMD processors and Linux. > > Thanks, > > -- > Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! > > .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user > `. `'` > `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system > > Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why must Debian call Taiwan a "Province of China"?
I'm not even going to dignify this with a reply other than Who cares? Nobody on the debian list, while reading the debian list. They might care when reading another list, but this offtopic crap. On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 05:49:40PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Joe Rhett writes: > > I suggest dropping Taiwan from the list entirely until they make up their > > minds. > > What makes you think the Taiwanese have not made up their minds? > -- > John Hasler > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) > Dancing Horse Hill > Elmwood, WI > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why must Debian call Taiwan a "Province of China"?
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 06:05:27AM +0800, Katipo wrote: > 'Province of China' on the other hand is a totally different proposition. > It is the imposition of a political stamp applied by mainland China, > a completely separate nation, who insist that Taiwan is part of greater > China. > > By assuming this stance, and therefore endorsing it, > Debians' position is itself compromised, and everybody associated with it. > Regards, How do you express this with a C compiler? You don't. I suggest dropping Taiwan from the list entirely until they make up their minds. Software development is the wrong place to argue politics. (note, I *DO* have my own opinion on this matter, and it's probably not what you're guessing from my conservative approach here... but software development is the wrong place to argue these sorts of things so I keep my opinions to mailing lists which care about this topic!) -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian for enterprise
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:12:43PM -0500, Sven Heinicke wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:22:33AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote: > > > When you do 'apt-get upgrade' you will only update stable->stable and > > > (maybe) testing->testing updates. If it doesn't do testing->testing, > > > then you have to do each one of them manually. > > > > > > This allows you to use stable as the default installation and then pull > > > in spamassassin (for example) from the testing branch to get something > > > more up to date without forcing everything into a -testing environment. > > > > I saw this recommended, and I tried it ... and never got anything. Even > > when testing had a higher priority, it never saw the updated packages. > > ..using apt-get by hand, as dselect confused me, er itself really :-( > > > > Are you using a specific package manager that gave you more control? > > > > I didn't see Joe Rhett entire post, so sorry if you already did this. > But try doing an 'apt-get update' before you do the apt-get upgrade. I did that. I thought I said that in my post, but maybe not. I understand the update thing, really ;-) -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian for enterprise
> When you do 'apt-get upgrade' you will only update stable->stable and > (maybe) testing->testing updates. If it doesn't do testing->testing, > then you have to do each one of them manually. > > This allows you to use stable as the default installation and then pull > in spamassassin (for example) from the testing branch to get something > more up to date without forcing everything into a -testing environment. I saw this recommended, and I tried it ... and never got anything. Even when testing had a higher priority, it never saw the updated packages. ...using apt-get by hand, as dselect confused me, er itself really :-( Are you using a specific package manager that gave you more control? -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?#
> > The point I was making is that most of us have better things to do than > > search more than 5 pages of google hits. If the 'right places' to get > > Debian applications were listed on the debian homepages, this wouldn't be > > necessary. (more on this below) > > All of the "right" places already ARE listed on the Debian homepage. > Sites like apt-get.org list all UNOFFICIAL packages which may very well > kill your entire system or worse. Hence, they are intentionally NOT > listed on debian.org. Okay, so the real answer does come down to: Debian DOES NOT have a framework for application management on production systems. You're flying by the seat of your pants, just like every other Linux distro. -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?#
Since this post has no technical merits, I separated it out. > > I've been using Linux since 0.7x kernels, so you can skip the patronizing. > > Last time I checked, some of my patches were still in the driver sources > > for various adapters. > Though I must say I'm extremely curious how you managed to use a 0.7x > kernel that never existed. The last release of the kernel after 0.12 was > 0.95 after all. I may have been swapping Slackware versions with kernel versions in my brain, but unless my memory has failed me you're wrong. 0.95 was one of the first stable (in practice) kernels in a fairly long time, and I remember some really unstable and unworkable kernels before it -- but I'm fairly certain that .95 was not a leap version. And god, this is going back what, 11 years now? So forgive me where my memory fails. Naturally, at the time we were all hacking stuff directly and rebuilding kernels to test drivers, so 'stable' as such didn't exist. I was doing most of the grunt work to get SMC network adapter cards functional and tested, as well as bitching about how lousy the NFS client was. -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?#
> So much for the topic at hand... in general: fear not. > It's part of the Linux learning process that one learns where to pick up > information. man, info, /usr/share/doc/, www... google is your friend, > but google is not the be-all and end-all of everything. > Especially if you what you're looking for can't easily be phrased as a > search term, or scores far too many hits. I've been using Linux since 0.7x kernels, so you can skip the patronizing. Last time I checked, some of my patches were still in the driver sources for various adapters. The point I was making is that most of us have better things to do than search more than 5 pages of google hits. If the 'right places' to get Debian applications were listed on the debian homepages, this wouldn't be necessary. (more on this below) > > > Wrong: > > http://source.backports.org/debian/dists/woody/mozilla/binary-i386/ > > > has mozilla 1.5. > > > > How is one to find this? I didn't find a link to that site anywhere > > > www.apt-get.org -- I wish I'd found out about that site a lot sooner > that I actually did. Your bookmarks ain't complete without it. I _WAS_ searching on apt-get.org and that's where I found that 1.4b4 was the latest one showing. The only firebird showing at the time was .5 .. I know this isn't your fault, but this is starting to become silly. I like Linux, but I don't install it in production environments because I prefer to get work done, rather than keep spinning in circles with stuff. Many people have tried to tell me how great the Debian package management stuff is, but I really ain't seeing it. Everything is still hack-it-yerself and live your life through Google. -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?#
> > > Kernel updates go in pretty quickly, as a rule. wireless-tools is up to > > > date in testing, and linux-wlan-ng is only a fraction behind unstable. > > > > Why isn't it showing me these? > > Kernel package names change, therefore package management tools don't > upgrade them automatically, which is probably a good thing for kernels. > Use a real package manager (not apt-get) which shows you new packages. The really funny thing about this whole topic is that we've now come full circle. Read the subject line. I am asking what package manager I should use, because apt-get doesn't seem to handle it well. You are telling me to use a different package manager. I had that answer before I started this thread. Which one? -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?
> Please, stop complaining, and do your research Actually, your comments here are demonstrating just how inadequate the apt-get documentation is. Because I read through it a dozen times -- and was already making notes to suggest cleaning it up -- and I never saw anything about the 'policy' command you're using here. So yes, I needed more information. But the public documentation didn't have anything about these commands, or how to use them appropriately. > if you make an > $ apt-get update > $ apt-get upgrade > > (or dist-upgrade) it will tell you "XXX packages have been held back." > These packages have new versions, but for some reason or another (maybe > dependencies problems) can not be upgraded without manual intervention. And there's no way to know what they are or why they were held back, that I can determine. > Most backport sites offer the possibility to add a line to your > sources.list, so after you "apt-get update" their information is in the > apt database, and dependencies are properly handled. > > For an excellent browser, try galen 1.2 (e.g. from > http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/packages/woody/bunk-1.html ) Galeon does not work. Again, if I want a browser that simply doesn't display whole paragraphs of CSS text, I could use old Mozilla. > > Oh, and no -- there is no modern Mozilla backports. The most modern > > backport is 1.4b4. That's nearly 9 months old. > > Wrong: http://source.backports.org/debian/dists/woody/mozilla/binary-i386/ > has mozilla 1.5. How is one to find this? I didn't find a link to that site anywhere on the debian main sites, nor from google searches. I would love to do my research, if it was possible without being part of the 'in crowd' ;-) > Aside, mozilla 1.5 was released some 2-3 weeks ago, you > need to leave some time for the people to do the packaging, right? Mozilla 1.4 was released what, 6 months ago? Still no version of 1.4 other than a pre-release beta that I could find in any backport site. > Your are right for Mozilla, but ... > > $ apt-cache policy konqueror > konqueror: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: 4:2.2.2-14.7 > I don't think konqueror 3.1.3 is 2 years old ..., and mozilla-firebird > is in testing (see above). But Konquerer doesn't handle perfectly valid HTML, and has decided that it would rather not try to fix those bugs, but instead wait for the world to come around to its point of view. That's useless in a production environment. -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?#
> Ah, that would explain your confusion. 'apt-get upgrade' isn't what you > want, since as documented in the apt-get(8) man page it will not install > new packages. In particular, if you attempt to use 'apt-get upgrade' to > upgrade from stable to testing, it will refuse to upgrade libc6 because > of that package's new dependency on libdb1-compat, and therefore > virtually nothing else will be upgraded because it almost all depends on > the new libc6. Actually, it does attempt that when I prefer 'unstable' .. and it fails. I had to manually back that stuff out. > Don't use 'apt-get upgrade' to upgrade from one version of the > distribution to the next. That said, it should have told you that some > big number of packages were being held back. Nope. "No updates are available" or whatever. > > Perhaps my product selections are biased: I really could care less about > > the latest and greatest desktop. They are pretty. But a browser that > > actually works is required to do my job, for example. > > Testing has a perfectly usable version of mozilla-firebird, which I'd > argue is a much better browser than plain mozilla. I might personally agree, but there are no production users of firebird. So we have to keep it around in a few places at least. > > Updates to the wireless drivers to improve device support would be > > useful. > > Kernel updates go in pretty quickly, as a rule. wireless-tools is up to > date in testing, and linux-wlan-ng is only a fraction behind unstable. Why isn't it showing me these? > > Stuff that has been safe and stable within Sid for over a year now > > (according to the package pages) still isn't appearing in testing. > > Examples, please? I'd be happy to look at them and see what I can do; I > can certainly explain what problems are involved. Perhaps related to above? Am I doing something wrong that I'm not seeing this stuff? > > In short, it appears that if one actually wants to use Debian as a > > desktop, one has no choice but to throw the debian guidelines out the > > window and run with unstable. > > I actually use Debian testing as a desktop, eight hours a day, five days > a week. It works great. > > > This means you lose commonality with any server 'stable' systems you > > might need to run. > > As far as commonality goes (although I don't quite understand what you > mean here), you should regard testing as closer to unstable in terms of > versions of software than to stable, because for the most part it is, > particularly in recent months. The general idea being that you could have an internal policy that no 'unstable' things are deployed on servers. I wouldn't mind running unstable on personal desktops, but if they diverge so far that there is a loss of commonality... -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?
> You seem to have a fairly big misconception here: Adding testing to the > sources.list and doing an apt-get update and upgrade will _not_ reflect > how many packages are in testing. Not by any stretch. > First off, apt-get upgrade and apt-get dist-upgrade are very different: > upgrade will install new versions of existing packages, but only as > long as it doesn't have to add/remove other packages to satisfy > depencencies. > dist-upgrade will install or remove other things as needed to meet > deps. > > HOWEVER, both of these commands are starting from the goal of upgrading > to newer versions of packages you _already_ have installed. It gives > you no idea what _else_ might be included in sarge. That's exactly what I want. Can you clarify the above -- is there a way to get a list of what you have that has new versions but don't meet dependancies? I'm not looking for products that aren't installed, I'm just looking for upgrades for things which are installing. Testing is showing me _NOTHING_ of any significance. Only when I prefer unstable do I see upgrades, then it wants a break the whole world shift :-( > > Perhaps my product selections are biased: I really could care less about > > the latest and greatest desktop. They are pretty. But a browser that > > actually works is required to do my job, for example. > > Fist off, you've already had the suggestion offered of using a backport > for this. Before you get too carried away with complaining that the > entire Debian process is useless, why don't you try the solution that > works for so many people. > Apt-get.org is your friend. The backports DO NOT fit into the debian framework. I can't use app-get to manage their dependancies. (unless there is some way to do this that isn't documented on the site) > Oh, and on browsers: I've personally been extremely happy with Firebird > (from the Mozilla folks). It isn't packaged as a deb anywhere I've > seen, but just unpacking the tarball in /usr/local/bin and running it > has worked fine for me. I didn't say "useless", but I did say (and it does appear) that having the unified application/dependancy management system doesn't help here. I might as well run another Linux or Solarix x86, because apt-get isn't doing anything for me here. A given downloaded package (like firebird) might require something, and I'll have to manage all those dependancies myself. Oh, and no -- there is no modern Mozilla backports. The most modern backport is 1.4b4. That's nearly 9 months old. > > Updates to the > > wireless drivers to improve device support would be useful. Stuff that has > > been safe and stable within Sid for over a year now (according to the > > package pages) still isn't appearing in testing. > > Aren't drivers generally part of the kernel, or kernel modules? > Which in turn are pretty much independant of which branch you're > running. You can compile whatever version kernel you want under > woody/sarge/sid... and make-kpkg makes it almost shockingly easy. Compile and kernel don't belong in the vocabulary of any operation which needs stable systems. > If you want a 'stable' system with later versions of just a few things, > you can use backports or failing that, compile your own. Why aren't these backports being introduced into testing and then stable? Why force people to deliberately go outside the package framework? > If you want an in-between system, run testing with the caveat that just > before a release, there's not a whole lot of new stuff going into > testing. (Seem counter-intuitive? I believe the reason is that just > before a release, the emphasis is on debugging the hell out of all the > stuff that's already in testing so that it meets Debian's (very high) > standards to qualify for the name 'stable' in time for release.) Again, I'm still not seeing anything in testing. Neither the Mozilla nor the Konqueror or any other browser that I can see in testing has been updated in the last 2 years, and all of them contain unworkable flaws that prevent their use in any production environment. > If you want more newer stuff than that, go ahead and run unstable. It > seems to only get significantly broken very rarely, but things do go > wrong sometimes when you run lots of really new versions of stuff. We have no desire to run unstable, but if that's the only way to have modern, unbroken versions of business applications then we'd have no choice, now would we? -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?
> > Try adding this line to your /etc/apt/apt.conf file and see if you get > > better results with your 'apt-get update': > > APT::Default-Release "testing"; > > That's unnecessary if you only have one release listed in > /etc/apt/sources.list (which is the configuration I'd strongly > recommend) and may just introduce confusion in that case. Although I totally understand your logic, the idea I am hoping can work is to run 'stable' by default, and upgrade to 'testing' versions of packages only as necessary to fulfill a given need. -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?
> > If testing is what is supposed to be the next release, then it seems > > pointless to even bother. "Testing" still has Mozilla 1.0. That's what, > > 2 years old? > > We're working on it, but the mozilla package is buggy, which makes it > difficult to make the testing management scripts happy with it. So buggy that it runs 2 years behind? > > > Well, that's basically exactly how it works. There's quite a few extra > > > details but that's the "meat and potatoes" of it so to speak. :) > > > > Then why is there really zero updates in testing? > > That's just rubbish, sorry. (I help manage testing; I watch what it's > doing almost every day.) Let me rephrase. Either the US mirrors are screwed, or there is less than a dozen packages in testing. Because adding testing to the sources list and doing an apt-get update (which was successful) and then trying to upgrade packages gets me next to nothing. I found hundreds more packages in 'security' than I did in testing, which actually baffles me since they should have much of the same content according to the debian guidelines. Perhaps my product selections are biased: I really could care less about the latest and greatest desktop. They are pretty. But a browser that actually works is required to do my job, for example. Updates to the wireless drivers to improve device support would be useful. Stuff that has been safe and stable within Sid for over a year now (according to the package pages) still isn't appearing in testing. In short, it appears that if one actually wants to use Debian as a desktop, one has no choice but to throw the debian guidelines out the window and run with unstable. This means you lose commonality with any server 'stable' systems you might need to run. -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 06:26:15PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: > The general answer is "downgrades are not supported". It is often > possible to just install the previous versions of packages with "dpkg" > (look in /var/cache/apt/archives/ for old .debs), but there are no > guarantees. Installing "apt-listchanges" and "apt-show-bugs" can help > make sure an upgrade is a wise choice before you do it. You've got to be kidding me. Hm, let's base the stability of our system on whether or not someone bothered to report a bug? With no way to go back? Right... -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?
> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 02:35, Joe Rhett wrote: > > I find it kindof sad that testing really doesn't appear to have any > > function any longer. One would like to run from testing and leave unstable > > for the well, unstable stuff. But I haven't really found much in testing, > > which means one must be stale, or bleed on the edge. Sux. On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:23:48AM -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote: > Well, in my experience, testing is most useful immediately following a > new stable release, and least useful immediately preceding a new stable > release. If you were to have started using Sarge right after Woody came > out, I think you would have been rather happy. But now that everyone's > trying to get Sarge ready to ship out, there's not many current things > going in. Isn't the point of testing that it should contain what will become stable? If testing is what is supposed to be the next release, then it seems pointless to even bother. "Testing" still has Mozilla 1.0. That's what, 2 years old? Unless I misunderstand the structure, shouldn't "testing" have lots of stuff in it just prior to a new release? There's almost zero updates in testing .. > Though Sid is definitely not the bleeding edge of stuff in Debian. Sid > is, generally speaking, quite stable. There's the occasional hiccup, but > I can count on one hand the number of major problems I've had with Sid > in the entire time I've been using Debian. (About 2 years now) > > If you really want bleeding edge, you add experimental to your > sources.list. That's where you get all the really fun stuff... :) Okay, so "testing" isn't. Unstable is really "testing" and experimental (not described in the debian documentation) is really unstable? > > In a perfect world, people would hammer things and then roll them into > > testing once they had been in unstable long enough without bug reports. > > This would allow us to keep high-uptime systems running the same kernels > > and such as our test/burn/destroy/rebuild laptops ;-) > > Well, that's basically exactly how it works. There's quite a few extra > details but that's the "meat and potatoes" of it so to speak. :) Then why is there really zero updates in testing? -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?
> Joe wrote: > > So I am writing here in hopes I'm overlooking > > something. Please, tell me > > how one can update just one package and its > > dependancies, without doing a > > full-on conversion from Woody to unstable? If a > > single package forces one > > to upgrade completely to unstable branch, then the > > entire purpose of the > > trees appears to be a moot point. Simon offered: > If you want to upgrade just Mozilla in Woody rather > than the whole host of things that Sid suggests you're > going need to look at backports, take a look at > www.apt-get.org but beware that using a range of > backported products together can seriously mess your > system up... That's good to know. > If you think you might want to upgrade other packages > in the future - and why not, Woody is *old* and most > people happily run Sid on their desktops - you should > look at dist-upgrading to Sid Is that the process I was seeing before? 1. Set the unstable archives to a higher preference in /etc/apt/preferences 2. "apt-get upgrade" to update the entire lot? ... or am I missing a step? I find it kindof sad that testing really doesn't appear to have any function any longer. One would like to run from testing and leave unstable for the well, unstable stuff. But I haven't really found much in testing, which means one must be stale, or bleed on the edge. Sux. In a perfect world, people would hammer things and then roll them into testing once they had been in unstable long enough without bug reports. This would allow us to keep high-uptime systems running the same kernels and such as our test/burn/destroy/rebuild laptops ;-) -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?
Okay, this is probably a bonehead user question but I'm just getting used to Debian. Not normally a bonehead :-( I would like/prefer to run 'stable'. Debian/Woody installed on my laptop perfectly fine. Wireless/WEP, IPsec, X all up and running SWEET. Unfortunately, the stable browser is 'zilla 1.0 :-( I would like to run a modern Mozilla, without updating the whole universe if possible. I've done the documented steps for accessing unstable (testing doesn't have anything newer) and rerun apt-get update and it sees the packages just fine. But when I try to upgrade mozilla it wants to install 293 packages ... uh, no. The man page indicates that apt-get upgrade doesn't handle single package upgrades -- to use dselect. Well dselect gets way way lost inside a tree I can't find my way out of. I spent an hour trying to make dselect happy, and I'm still lost. So finally I just went to the package directly using mozilla. It tells me of the dependancies, but allows me to download directly. But then kpackage barfs because it wants all the dependancies. Am I really supposed to spend all night long manually downloading all the dependancies? Ugh. So I am writing here in hopes I'm overlooking something. Please, tell me how one can update just one package and its dependancies, without doing a full-on conversion from Woody to unstable? If a single package forces one to upgrade completely to unstable branch, then the entire purpose of the trees appears to be a moot point. Now -- skip the download and compile yourself. No fun. And skip the 'download the 'zilla net installer and use that' -- because I already have. But I want to know how to solve this problem and stay within the Debian framework. -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
