Re: apt-get? non stable debs?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 02:03:02PM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > I'd hardly call it luck. The problem with perl is that, since it's part > of the base system it is not listed as a dependency by many of the > programs that need it. And since the woody/sid perl is not entirely > backward compatible with potato's, you lose. > > If perl was removed from the base system, and packages were forced to > explicitly depend on it, then this problem could be fixed since packages > could depend on a specific perl version. Packages can and do depend on specific perl versions. However, they cannot tell in advance whether *future* versions of perl will break them. In theory this ought to be handled by perl-base declaring conflicts on things it breaks; in practice it usually ends up being handled by those packages being updated for whatever minor thing changed in the new perl, hence breaking partial upgrades. This situation would not be improved a jot by removing perl-base from 'Essential: yes'. Non-base packages are encouraged to depend on perl rather than relying on perl-base anyway. > Then set your Mail-Followup-To header, which my mailer respects. Since > you don't do that, I have no way of knowing where you want your replies > sent and can make no assumptions. A good default in the absence of this header is not to send a copy, especially when somebody is already following up to a post on the mailing list and can therefore be reasonably assumed to be subscribed. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get? non stable debs?
Noah Meyerhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 07:54:52PM +0200, Stephen Rueger wrote: >> P.S.: No need to send me a private mail, i'm subscribed > > Then set your Mail-Followup-To header, which my mailer respects. Since > you don't do that, I have no way of knowing where you want your replies > sent and can make no assumptions. According to the mailing list code of conduct, you should assume he doesn't want any copies: * When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied. -- Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get? non stable debs?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 07:54:52PM +0200, Stephen Rueger wrote: > > I have done this on a whole mess of machines. For example, I wanted > > bind9, so I installed it from woody. apt-get installed its dependencies > > as well, but that is no problem. The machine has run fine since I did > > this several months ago. > > You've been lucky... see what happens if it pulls the new perl in. I'd hardly call it luck. The problem with perl is that, since it's part of the base system it is not listed as a dependency by many of the programs that need it. And since the woody/sid perl is not entirely backward compatible with potato's, you lose. If perl was removed from the base system, and packages were forced to explicitly depend on it, then this problem could be fixed since packages could depend on a specific perl version. Fortunately, things like glibc are don't break compatibility like perl does. > > P.S.: No need to send me a private mail, i'm subscribed Then set your Mail-Followup-To header, which my mailer respects. Since you don't do that, I have no way of knowing where you want your replies sent and can make no assumptions. noah -- ___ | Web: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/ | PGP Public Key: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/mail.html pgp3CDyCJqJcj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: apt-get? non stable debs?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 01:45:55PM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 08:30:19AM +0200, Stephen Rueger wrote: > > > Would you edit your sources.list to point to "testing"... > > > apt-get update > > > apt-get install packagename > > > edit sources.list back to "stable"... > > > apt-get update > > > > No, you wouldn't. The only thing you would get is a seriously broken > > box. > > Absolutely not. This works quite well. Be aware that all the > dependencies for whatever package you 'install' would be pulled in as > well. This will possibly upgrade some libraries, but that should not be > problematic. > > I have done this on a whole mess of machines. For example, I wanted > bind9, so I installed it from woody. apt-get installed its dependencies > as well, but that is no problem. The machine has run fine since I did > this several months ago. You've been lucky... see what happens if it pulls the new perl in. I've spend some time in #debian over at OPN and have seen quite a few people doing such silly things. Sometimes it works, but in most cases it breaks, and it breaks really hard. So be warned and careful with what you recommend to do. P.S.: No need to send me a private mail, i'm subscribed -- french fries are what you get when you cut a potato up into little chunks and boil them in grease. Kinda like the result when you try to install testing or unstable packages on your potato Debian system. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get? non stable debs?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 08:30:19AM +0200, Stephen Rueger wrote: > > Would you edit your sources.list to point to "testing"... > > apt-get update > > apt-get install packagename > > edit sources.list back to "stable"... > > apt-get update > > No, you wouldn't. The only thing you would get is a seriously broken > box. Absolutely not. This works quite well. Be aware that all the dependencies for whatever package you 'install' would be pulled in as well. This will possibly upgrade some libraries, but that should not be problematic. I have done this on a whole mess of machines. For example, I wanted bind9, so I installed it from woody. apt-get installed its dependencies as well, but that is no problem. The machine has run fine since I did this several months ago. noah -- ___ | Web: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/ | PGP Public Key: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/mail.html pgpntXxyAhC2H.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: apt-get? non stable debs?
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 22:36:51 -0700 Mike Egglestone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > What would one do if they were running a "stable" box, and wanted > a package that was only offered in "testing" or "unstable"? I'm not sure potato's apt-get can do it (using woody myself), but since you can't do apt pinning then you could try the -t flag, like this: apt-get -t testing install ... and then check apt-get's warning about extra packages to be upgraded and/or removed, before you hit Enter. This method has the disadvantage of not letting apt track the evolution of these packages, so you'll not be prompted for upgrades when you issue "apt-get [dist-]upgrade". The best solution to your case is probably to upgrade your system's apt and dpkg to those of Woody, and then set up apt pinning to track all your packages the right way. There's a Debian Howto covering this, a "qref" by Osamu Aoki if I'm not mistaken. Google will probably turn it up for you. It's easy to end up with an unusable broken system doing this apt/dpkg upgrade, so be sure to follow instructions to the letter if you try this. -- Carlos Sousa http://vbc.dyndns.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get? non stable debs?
On Sun, 2002-06-30 at 13:36, Mike Egglestone wrote: > Hi, > What would one do if they were running a "stable" box, and wanted > a package that was only offered in "testing" or "unstable"? > > Would you edit your sources.list to point to "testing"... > apt-get update > apt-get install packagename > edit sources.list back to "stable"... > apt-get update The surest way to do such (without upgrading to the testing/unstable distributions) is to grab the source code + diffs + dsc file for that package, edit the control file et. al (to satisfy the dependencies), then compile it (via dpkg-buildpackage). Note that you might need to backport a number of packages just to achieve this feat (I did this when I backported PHP4.2 from unstable to stable. Darn too many packages that needs to be backported). -- -->paolo Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG KeyID 0xEADFF6F4 Tel# (632)6429577 Fax# (632)6429561 Mobile# +639174379283 ___ "You are a software developer. On the cutting edge. You need the latest and greatest in computer technology. That's why you use, uh, Unix. Yeah. Anyway, even if your operating system harks back to the 1960s, you definitely can't live without the most modern software development and management systems available" -- quote adapted signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: apt-get? non stable debs?
On Sun, 2002-06-30 at 02:51, Derek Gladding wrote: > Yes, it's called "pinning" (don't ask me why...). It allows you > to keep one distribution selected as the default (i.e. stable), and > one or more others that are usable if explictly requested. If you > pull a package from the non-default distribution, all dependencies > will also be pulled along with it. Not with potato's apt. Its only woody and above. Sorry, your gonna have to upgrade to Woody. Its almost stable anyway. -- -Peace kid Scott Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] "God's the ultimate playa, so naturally He's going to have some haters," rapper Ice Cube said. "But these haters need to realize that if you mess with the man upstairs, you will get your ass smote. True dat." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get? non stable debs?
On Saturday 29 June 2002 10:36 pm, Mike Egglestone wrote: > Hi, > What would one do if they were running a "stable" box, and wanted > a package that was only offered in "testing" or "unstable"? > > Would you edit your sources.list to point to "testing"... > apt-get update > apt-get install packagename > edit sources.list back to "stable"... > apt-get update > > Is there a better way to achieve this? > > Thanks > Mike Yes, it's called "pinning" (don't ask me why...). It allows you to keep one distribution selected as the default (i.e. stable), and one or more others that are usable if explictly requested. If you pull a package from the non-default distribution, all dependencies will also be pulled along with it. Do a google for "preferences" "apt" and "pinning" - it should give you all the required info. If you just want to know what you need to tweak, create a file called /etc/apt/preferences that contains the following: Package: * Pin: release a=stable Pin-Priority: 777 Package: * Pin: release a=testing Pin-Priority: 333 Then: - set up your sources.list file to refer to all the distributions you're interested in - do an apt-get update Once this has all cooked, you'll be able to use apt-get in two ways: apt-get will pull the stable version of package apt-get -t testing will pull the testing version of package and all its dependencies Hope this helps - Derek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get? non stable debs?
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 10:36:51PM -0700, Mike Egglestone wrote: > What would one do if they were running a "stable" box, and wanted > a package that was only offered in "testing" or "unstable"? > > Would you edit your sources.list to point to "testing"... > apt-get update > apt-get install packagename > edit sources.list back to "stable"... > apt-get update No, you wouldn't. The only thing you would get is a seriously broken box. > Is there a better way to achieve this? Compile from source or upgrade to woody. -- Stephen Rüger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get? non stable debs?
On Sun, 2002-06-30 at 00:36, Mike Egglestone wrote: > Hi, > What would one do if they were running a "stable" box, and wanted > a package that was only offered in "testing" or "unstable"? > > Would you edit your sources.list to point to "testing"... > apt-get update > apt-get install packagename > edit sources.list back to "stable"... > apt-get update > > Is there a better way to achieve this? Sure, just download the particular deb you want for the release that you want from packages.debian.org. Then just use dpkg to install them. -Alex signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
apt-get? non stable debs?
Hi, What would one do if they were running a "stable" box, and wanted a package that was only offered in "testing" or "unstable"? Would you edit your sources.list to point to "testing"... apt-get update apt-get install packagename edit sources.list back to "stable"... apt-get update Is there a better way to achieve this? Thanks Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
