1.1 -> 1.2 dselect/dpkg breaks
After a trouble-free complete 1.2 install on a new laptop, I began the process of upgrading my 1.1 box. dpkg and dselect have broken after the list of available packages is updated: Uncompressing /u/dna/usr1/people/nathan/src/debian/stable/binary-i386/Packages.gz ... done. Replacing available packages info, using packages-main. Information about 716 package(s) was updated. Uncompressing /u/dna/usr1/people/nathan/src/debian/contrib/binary-i386/Packages.gz ... done. Updating available packages info, using packages-ctb. Information about 37 package(s) was updated. Uncompressing /u/dna/usr1/people/nathan/src/debian/non-free/binary-i386/Packages.gz ... done. Updating available packages info, using packages-nf. Information about 108 package(s) was updated. Update OK. Hit RETURN. dselect: parse error, in file `/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 15778 package `zlib1': empty value for version There's no big syntax error that I can see (with my uneducated eyes) in that area of "available", and now dpkg won't run because of the problem. How do I work around this? Delete available for now? Thanks for any help! nathan -- Nathan Siemers - Research Investigator, Bioinformatics Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute K14-06, P.O. Box 4000, Princeton, NJ 08543-4000; (609) 252-6568
Re: 1.1 -> 1.2 dselect/dpkg breaks
On Mar 19, Nathan O. Siemers wrote > There's no big syntax error that I can see (with my uneducated eyes) > in that area of "available", The section before it most likely has an entry with a ':' in the version numbering. This is a use of the new "epoch" feature in dpkg (to deal with packages whose version numbering scheme has changed), which causes problems with older dpkgs. > and now dpkg won't run because of the problem. How do I work around this? > Delete available for now? Thanks for any help! I recently did an 1.1->1.2 upgrade. When I encountered this problem, I removed the offending entries in available, installed the new dpkg, and asked dselect to update the list of available packages again. HTH, Ray -- PATRIOTISM A great British writer once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and betraying a friend he hoped he would have the decency to betray his country. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
1.1 -> 1.2
Well, I upgraded, from 1.1 to 1.2 (Cheap Bytes CDROM). I did the base first, and that worked fine. The rest, however, did not go quite so well. Tcsh refused to upgrade: I'll figure out what's wrong there one of these days. I'm fairly sure I did not mark maelstrom for removal, but it's just a game. I'm certain, however, that I did *not* mark popclient for removal. I restored it from tape. My customized mail crontab was replaced, though I answered N to all requests for permission to alter configuration files. I suppose I'd better look through all the crontabs to see what else changed. Smail choked on a "checkpaths" command in the stock directors file. I suppose I should report that as a smail bug. The first time I tried to use "most" in an xterm, I was told "Terminal not powerful enough for SLang". SLang is undocumented. I restored "most" from tape. John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: Curious thing about 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade problems
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ... > While I'm at it, XF86Config -- I've notice this odd behavior while configuring > X windows, if I specify the memory of the video card as it should be, the > screen is all screwed up for all resolutions. However, if I specify the memory > at twice what it is, then all screen look beautiful. I tried this on two > different machines. Each machine has a different video card with different > amounts of memory. And both machines displayed this odd behavior. One has a > generic VGA card with 256K, and the other has a Trident 9440 w/512K memory. > I configured & reconfigured a dozen times trying to figure out what was wrong. > 8-) On the last try, I "lied" to the config program and specified twice the > memory. Lo and behold. 8-) Hmmm...I wonder if that is related to something strange I saw: Something I ran to auto-detect the amount of video reported twice the amount I thought I had (1MB vs. 2MB). (Sorry I don't recall if it was SuperProbe I ran manually or something run in the and package configuration--probably the latter.) By the way, for me X works fine with the correct value in XF86Config. Daniel -- Daniel S. Barclay Compass Design Automation, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 100, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd. Columbia, MD 21045 USA -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Curious thing about 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade problems
Rick Macdonald writes: > > > I've been living off the unstable tree for almost a year. Back when the > version was 0.95r6 or something like that. I believe this is a problem. People, who have "fat pipes" to get their upgrades from the FTP sites, can live off of the "unstable" tree and have their systems incrementally upgraded. Those of us with "thin pipes" have to either make do with long download times or use CDROMs to do our incremental upgrade. The difference is the size of the increment. > > I really haven't had any problems to speak about, and certainly > not all the problems that people are writing about when upgrading > 1.1 -> 1.2. Keeping in step with the development team has it's advantages 8-) > > One reason may be that I just don't have as many packages installed, > but I was wondering if anybody had any other explainations as to why many > small incremental upgrades over the months seems to be more stable (in the > sense of installations not breaking) than making larger leaps from > point release to point release. I agree, stable only from the point of view of less dependency problems. IMHO, grabbing from the unstable tree has a higher _risk_ of bugs in the software. I believe that, prior to official release, the "frozen" tree should be tested in two ways: 1) complete load from scratch (looking for breakage) 2) complete upgrade from an existing older release (again, looking for breakage). It is hard to sell someone on the "professional" aspects of Debian Linux, when it breaks at installation time (not to mention the "egg on face"). While I'm at it, XF86Config -- I've notice this odd behavior while configuring X windows, if I specify the memory of the video card as it should be, the screen is all screwed up for all resolutions. However, if I specify the memory at twice what it is, then all screen look beautiful. I tried this on two different machines. Each machine has a different video card with different amounts of memory. And both machines displayed this odd behavior. One has a generic VGA card with 256K, and the other has a Trident 9440 w/512K memory. I configured & reconfigured a dozen times trying to figure out what was wrong. 8-) On the last try, I "lied" to the config program and specified twice the memory. Lo and behold. 8-) -- -= Sent by Debian 1.2 Linux =- Thomas Kocourek KD4CIK [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Curious thing about 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade problems
At 07:06 PM 1/4/97 -0500, Daniel S. Barclay wrote: > >> From: Rick Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I've been living off the unstable tree for almost a year. Back when the >> version was 0.95r6 or something like that. >> >> I really haven't had any problems to speak about, and certainly >> not all the problems that people are writing about when upgrading >> 1.1 -> 1.2. >> >> One reason may be that I just don't have as many packages installed, >> but I was wondering if anybody had any other explainations as to why many >> small incremental upgrades over the months seems to be more stable (in the >> sense of installations not breaking) than making larger leaps from >> point release to point release. >> >> I'd really like to hear that my observation is indeed false, since >> upgradability is, of course, one of our major claims for Debian. > > >I wonder: Was the Debian 1.2 release ever tested? That is, did anyone >at Debian try installing it from scratch? Yes, I installed the whole system from scratch, however, Bruce did make a few changes to the disks after I had used them so that may be what is catching a few people. I also had to use the ftp install method, and if I remember correctly an ftp binary was included on the disks. Shaya -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Curious thing about 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade problems
> One reason may be that I just don't have as many packages installed, > but I was wondering if anybody had any other explainations as to why many > small incremental upgrades over the months seems to be more stable (in the > sense of installations not breaking) than making larger leaps from > point release to point release. A lot of the problems seem to be dependency related. By upgrading, we need to install packages A, B, C, and D, but C needs to be installed before B, and D before C. So but if some of the depends don't catch it, the installation may fail the first (or second times) until D is install, and then C is installed. I had a problem with tcsh and csh. Both were scheduled for upgrade, but the old versions conflicted with the new. I ended up deinstalling tcsh, so that csh would upgrade, then reselecting tcsh to be installed, which seemed to work. In addition, by upgrading slowing, you would have installed D when it came along, around the same time as the package maintainer of C installed on his machine to make the new package for C. You won't run into this problem since by the time C comes out, you had already installed D. > I'd really like to hear that my observation is indeed false, since > upgradability is, of course, one of our major claims for Debian. This is one of the biggest problems with Debian, but it is inherent with any system with interactive programs, especially with the large number of different people working on packages that affect several other packages. Some of this can be fixed with beta upgrades, but hopefully the xxx-fixed will be able to help keep it staight(er). One other reason, by upgrading slowly, if a package fails, the error and what has changed may be a little more obvious. With a large upgrade, the interaction be less obvious. Also, some of the 'obvious' errors are less obvious when other errors are concurrent. Hence some of the 'Never mind, I answered my own stupid question posts'. Mark W. Blunier -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Curious thing about 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade problems
> From: Rick Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I've been living off the unstable tree for almost a year. Back when the > version was 0.95r6 or something like that. > > I really haven't had any problems to speak about, and certainly > not all the problems that people are writing about when upgrading > 1.1 -> 1.2. > > One reason may be that I just don't have as many packages installed, > but I was wondering if anybody had any other explainations as to why many > small incremental upgrades over the months seems to be more stable (in the > sense of installations not breaking) than making larger leaps from > point release to point release. > > I'd really like to hear that my observation is indeed false, since > upgradability is, of course, one of our major claims for Debian. I wonder: Was the Debian 1.2 release ever tested? That is, did anyone at Debian try installing it from scratch? Of the problems I've hit, I don't really know which are because of InfoMagic's bad CD-ROM, but a lot seem to be from the Debian release itself. (For example, at least from my CD-ROM, Netscape wrapper package depends on X11R6, but there is no package X11R6, and no package provides X11R6.) Daniel -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curious thing about 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade problems
I've been living off the unstable tree for almost a year. Back when the version was 0.95r6 or something like that. I really haven't had any problems to speak about, and certainly not all the problems that people are writing about when upgrading 1.1 -> 1.2. One reason may be that I just don't have as many packages installed, but I was wondering if anybody had any other explainations as to why many small incremental upgrades over the months seems to be more stable (in the sense of installations not breaking) than making larger leaps from point release to point release. I'd really like to hear that my observation is indeed false, since upgradability is, of course, one of our major claims for Debian. ...RickM... -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: My upgrade 1.1->1.2
Daniel S. Barclay writes: > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I'm using the InfoMagic CDrom set (Dec 96) to upgrade. Here are some notes: > > > 3) several packages have 2 versions and "dselect" happily installs both > > versions without trying to distinguish between them. And because of the > > directory order (checked with 'ls -U'), the older version gets installed > > last 8-( & the newer version is purged. These offenders are: > > ... > > If you need any of these packages, I'd recommend installing these packages > > by hand. > > If you return to dselect to install other things, will it leave these > packages alone, or will it try to upgrade/downgrade these? Once installed by hand, dselect does leave the packages alone. -- -= Sent by Debian 1.2 Linux =- Thomas Kocourek KD4CIK [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: My upgrade 1.1->1.2
On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Daniel S. Barclay wrote: > If you return to dselect to install other things, will it leave these > packages alone, or will it try to upgrade/downgrade these? > You can insure that dselect leaves them alone, by marking them with an "H". This will hold off any action on those packages. Luck, Dwarf -- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 If you don't see what you want, just ask -- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: My upgrade 1.1->1.2
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ... > I'm using the InfoMagic CDrom set (Dec 96) to upgrade. Here are some notes: ... > 3) several packages have 2 versions and "dselect" happily installs both > versions without trying to distinguish between them. And because of the > directory order (checked with 'ls -U'), the older version gets installed > last 8-( & the newer version is purged. These offenders are: > > ... > If you need any of these packages, I'd recommend installing these packages > by hand. If you return to dselect to install other things, will it leave these packages alone, or will it try to upgrade/downgrade these? Daniel -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade questions 1.1->1.2
To answer myself and inform the folks on this list > I'd like to suggest that an option be added to the conflict list of dselect. > This option would allow one to pull-up the "Packages" description on a After digging around, I found the "I/i" key did the trick for above! A big _thanks_ to the "dselect" maintainer. -- -= Sent by Debian Linux =- Thomas Kocourek KD4CIK [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: upgrade from 1.1 -> 1.2, some minor problems
I didn't see any follow-ups on this one so here I go... [Klippa, klapp, kluppit] > 4) In the configuration mode of dselect, I needed to use the 'Z' >parameter to move to the background and examine configuration >files. The first package I tried this on was 'xntp'. After I was >finished I typed 'fg' and the system got really confused. This >never happened to me before! I basically had to start all over >with the configuration phase. > >I got around this problem by using another console window to look >at configuration files. I didn't trust the 'fg' command anymore. I got bitten by this one too. [Klippa, klapp, kluppit] Additionaly I've noticed that telinit -t 20 0 (as root) in an xterm sometimes doesn't wait the specified 20 seconds. Just anoying, except for the time directly after the upgrade, when the machine locked up: red button time! > /--\ > | James D. Freels, P.E._i, Ph.D. | Phone: (423)576-8645 | | L | > | Oak Ridge National Laboratory | FAX:(423)574-9172 | H | I | > | Research Reactors Division | Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | F | N | > | P. O. Box 2008 | Reactor Technology | I | U | > | Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6392 | world's best neutrons! | R | X | > \--/ Gott nytt år! MartinS -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: My upgrade 1.1->1.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Fri, 27 Dec 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 5) mail/smartlist*.deb depends on base >= 1.2.0-3 My system is being upgraded > and base = 1.1.0-14 ! So, where is the upgrade package for "base"? I haven't > been able to find it on the CDROM 8-( Accoring to smartlist's changelog... smartlist (3.10-8) stable unstable; urgency=low * Made dependant on base-passwd instead of base * fixed postinst dependance on homedirectory of user list * fixed postrm removal of group/userid -- Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 17 Dec 1996 05:28:41 -0800 ... this will be fixed in Debian 1.2.1. [ base-passwd is now the package containing /etc/passwd and /etc/group ]. Thanks. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 iQCVAwUBMsUiiSqK7IlOjMLFAQFiSgP/fMM6ky0joTXFdJLvvmTmIabYqi1mFsLy yD5+FJSa1fszubKi8APOHhkLENUybC2TWRfQtGBhHGcGL/JU8f3y6DmLSZIz12xM 8sqwQ1Tf9BGxgjuGrEiGD60WvloJoOxfTKfIprzZ4EsclkcGHxXsbUfDFQFTVpbC KW1g3hD1s+Y= =bNbJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Upgrade questions 1.1->1.2
I broke down and got Debian on CD (InfoMagic Dec 96 issue). In trying to install/upgrade, I ran into trouble 8-). Some of it was covered by the messages from this list (hurray!) However, I'm not familar enough with the programming tools to make an intellegent decision as to what to select in the conflicts. I'd like to suggest that an option be added to the conflict list of dselect. This option would allow one to pull-up the "Packages" description on a selected item. Thus, a newby like myself can make an "informed" decision and resolve a conflict 8-) Another "nice to have" option for the conflict list - flag an item for an "override" of the dependencies (along with appropriate warnings 8-) Example: Ilu depends on python python conflicts with python-base (all python-* depend on python-base) Question - Do I give up on "ilu & python" in favor of python-* ? What's the difference between python and python-base? Do I need to do an override on "ilu"? -- -= Sent by Debian Linux =- Thomas Kocourek KD4CIK [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My upgrade 1.1->1.2
I'm using the InfoMagic CDrom set (Dec 96) to upgrade. Here are some notes: 1) I installed dpkg*.deb and ldso*.deb by hand (per messages from this list) 2) Xlib6 and xlib have conflicts which cause problems in dselect. I remember a fix for this, but I can't find the message(s). Would someone please repost the fix for xlib dependencies. 3) several packages have 2 versions and "dselect" happily installs both versions without trying to distinguish between them. And because of the directory order (checked with 'ls -U'), the older version gets installed last 8-( & the newer version is purged. These offenders are: admin/ pcmcia-modules*.deb base/ base-files*.deb kernel-image*.deb doc/ man_*.deb mail/ smartlist*.deb net/ ppp*.deb x11/ xbase*.deb xlib6_3*.deb If you need any of these packages, I'd recommend installing these packages by hand. 4) /etc/group somehow managed to get buggered up. A quick edit fixed it. 5) mail/smartlist*.deb depends on base >= 1.2.0-3 My system is being upgraded and base = 1.1.0-14 ! So, where is the upgrade package for "base"? I haven't been able to find it on the CDROM 8-( -- -= Sent by Debian Linux =- Thomas Kocourek KD4CIK [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
upgrade from 1.1 -> 1.2, some minor problems
I have 3 Intel machines running Debian 1.1. I have just upgraded one of them to Debian 1.2. These are the minor problems I had 1) netstd and gcc required cpp, but did not tell me up front in dselect, but at the time it tried to install. I fixed it with a manual dpkg -i of cpp, then a manual install of netstd and gcc. 2) I had some problems installing gs, but I did not pursue it on this machine since I decided I didn't really need it. I will need it on my other machines. I think it has to do with the newer version from Alladin. 3) I decided to remove gpm after I upgraded it. I could not and still cannot remove it. dpkg gives me an error on pre-installation script. I'm still stuck on this one. 4) In the configuration mode of dselect, I needed to use the 'Z' parameter to move to the background and examine configuration files. The first package I tried this on was 'xntp'. After I was finished I typed 'fg' and the system got really confused. This never happened to me before! I basically had to start all over with the configuration phase. I got around this problem by using another console window to look at configuration files. I didn't trust the 'fg' command anymore. 5) I tried to create a new boot floppy for kernel 2.0.27, and could not issue dd if=vmlinuz of=/dev/fd0 bs=80k conv=sync due to a 'read-only' error message. The usually change to rw to all for /dev/fd0 did not fix the problem. I do have fdutils installed, but don't have time to learn how to use them. I'm stuck on this one also (i.e., it boots from the hard drive via lilo, but I can't create a new boot floppy at this point, sort of fundamental stuff here). That's about all of my problems now. I'm a little reluctant to upgrade my main machine(s) which have X, TeX, and alot of other software packages which this system does not. However, the print server I just upgraded is running fine now. The entire upgrade took about 1-2 hours. Really nice as usual from the Debian team!!! I am looking forward to trying some of the new packages. I'd be glad to post one or more of the above items as bugs unless someone points out that I have made some other mistake I'm not aware of. -- /--\ | James D. Freels, P.E._i, Ph.D. | Phone: (423)576-8645 | | L | | Oak Ridge National Laboratory | FAX:(423)574-9172 | H | I | | Research Reactors Division | Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | F | N | | P. O. Box 2008 | Reactor Technology | I | U | | Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6392 | world's best neutrons! | R | X | \--/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian 1.1 -> 1.2 update
Ok, I'm back on-line. I completely obliterated my debian installation through not reading the documentation, but that's my problem. I am now working on 1.2 and would like to thank everyone involved. It looks brilliant. I might even try and get X to work... A couple of little things 1) /dev/MAKEDEV no longer supports the option loop. I remembered something about major 7 when I ran this on 1.1 and it seems to be working. 2) the install disks say Welcome to Debian 1.1 3) When I tried to configure modules from the install disks, it failed saying the kernel was the wrong version (see point 2) Apart from this it was quite painless, once I got over the fact that I had completely obliterated my existing installation. The good thing about this is that I only took about 2 days to get everything up and running, from scratch. Somebody has put a lot of good work into the packaging system. Once again thanks. Simon Martin -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade instructions
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Matthew Swift wrote: > > I have searched the Debian web page and the ftp hierarchy and been > unable to find any instructions on upgrading to 1.2 from 1.1, except > for a cryptic sentence in the README in the upgrades directory -- the > rest of the documentation there is outdated. What to do with the > files mentioned in the README as relevant to this upgrade is unclear. > The mail archives of debian-user are broken or at least out of date, > so please pardon me if this is a recent FAQ. I'm sorry I had no time to update the manual upgrade instructions. The README points out that the new upgrade programs now include: DoList, base.list-1.2 and devel.list-1.2. The base list has been updated to match current 1.2, although the devel.list is still a pre-release list and may need minor modification to get all the devel packages upgraded properly. Once you have upgrade the base files, you should have no trouble using dselect to upgrade the rest of your system, or you can build your on list to drive DoList. Hope this helps, Dwarf -- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 877-0257 Flexible Software Fax: NONE Black Creek Critters e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you don't see what you want, just ask -- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade
I was greatly impressed with the relatively painless upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2. Good job, guys! However I did notice a couple of things which I feel should be mentioned here: 1) The modules package overwrites /sbin/request-route without checking to see if it has been modified by the user. 2) I used dpkg-ftp to do the upgrade, which I did in small groups due to my reliance on a slow modem. Having retrieved groups of packages which together met the dependencies imposed I was surprised to see that they were not installed in any order. Quite a few of the new packages relied on the libc that comes with 1.2, as this was about the last thing to unpack and install some packages wouldn't install the first time through easy to fix but a tad messy. 3) Why does my UK keymap no longer work under X (it's imposed a US one on me!!)?? I though XFree3.2 used the kernel keymap, which is definately UK on my machine. Many thanks, Rich. -- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Rich Deighton | 79 Radcliffe Road, West Bridgford | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Nottingham, England. NG2 5HE. | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Need 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade instructions
I have searched the Debian web page and the ftp hierarchy and been unable to find any instructions on upgrading to 1.2 from 1.1, except for a cryptic sentence in the README in the upgrades directory -- the rest of the documentation there is outdated. What to do with the files mentioned in the README as relevant to this upgrade is unclear. The mail archives of debian-user are broken or at least out of date, so please pardon me if this is a recent FAQ. Is there a way to use dpkg-ftp to do the upgrade? An older version of dpkg-ftp than is now available used to work with 1.1, but it broke itself by unpacking of a newer version of itself (1.4.5). I could raid my backups for the old dpkg-ftp that works, but perhaps there is an easier way. The new dpkg-ftp requires an updated dpkg, which requires an updated libc5 and ldso, which is getting too dangerous, so I won't attempt this by hand without instructions. I realize it would be safe to download all of the base dir and manually install it, but again this is surely more work than necessary. I don't think I am on this mailing list, so please reply accordingly. Matt Swift -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
