-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
we could add dependencies until the cows come home... ie...
depends on = version x but not version y and less then version z...
but the question is...what good would it do us now? The next
version of KDE is 3 and the package names are
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 07:45:23PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
we could add dependencies until the cows come home... ie...
depends on = version x but not version y and less then version z...
but the question is...what good would it do us now? The next
version of KDE is 3 and the
See my next mail on more thoughts about this.
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: KMail and Debian packages
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 18:04:19 +0100
From: Michael Häckel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Ivan,
We (the KMail team
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 21 November 2001 18:04, Michael Häckel wrote:
If it is really not possible to change that, wouldn't it then be
better to leave the whole KDE release in unstable until all
packages are ready for testing?
Wouldn't making all KDE
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 07:37:30PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
On Wednesday 21 November 2001 18:04, Michael Häckel wrote:
If it is really not possible to change that, wouldn't it then be
better to leave the whole KDE release in unstable until all
packages are ready for testing?
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 07:37:28PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
See my next mail on more thoughts about this.
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: KMail and Debian packages
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 18:04:19 +0100
From: Michael Häckel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ivan E. Moore II
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 21 November 2001 19:50, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
testing is not meant to be functional at all. It
is meant as a staging ground for our next release.
quote
testing -- leading edge, maybe buggy, but working
/quote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 21 November 2001 19:43, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
HELL NO!
Whew ... First of all, why don't you cool down a little? It's not
that I want to hurt you or even say that you did something wrong. I
just want to talk about ways of making
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 08:51:57PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
On Wednesday 21 November 2001 19:50, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
testing is not meant to be functional at all. It
is meant as a staging ground for our next release.
quote
testing -- leading edge, maybe buggy, but
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 08:52:09PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
On Wednesday 21 November 2001 19:43, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
HELL NO!
Whew ... First of all, why don't you cool down a little? It's not
that I want to hurt you or even say that you did something wrong. I
just want to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Okay. I get it. Thanks for the explanation.
- --
- -M
- --- Magnus von Koeller [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Georg-Westermann-Allee 76 / 38104 Braunschweig / Germany
Phone: +49-(0)531/2094886 Mobile: +49-(0)179/4562940
lp1 on fire (One of
Forgive my newbieness, but it seems you are saying that unstable is actually
more stable than testing. Since I am primarily a user who wants a good
compromise between stability and currency (in this case, I want KDE 2.2.x), I
should actually be running unstable rather than testing?
Help out a
Further, at http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/ , it says the following:
the testing distribution should be more stable than unstable, but you should
be cautious nevertheless.
Now I'm really confused . . . ?
Thank you all.
James Lindenschmidt Spoke Thusly:
Forgive my newbieness, but it
On Wednesday 21 November 2001 21:08, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
but the question is...what good would it do us now? The next version of
KDE is 3 and the package names are different so putting in hacks (which is
all they are) won't do a bit of good.
Maybe also the package names for KDE 2.1 and
I would have to say that overall for the time that testing has been in place
unstable has been more stable in my opinion. Usually when unstable breaks
it's fixed within 24-48 hours...when testing breaks it usually stays broken
for quite some time depending on what is broken.
Testing has the
Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
I would have to say that overall for the time that testing has been in place
unstable has been more stable in my opinion. Usually when unstable breaks
it's fixed within 24-48 hours...when testing breaks it usually stays broken
for quite some time depending on what
I would have to say that overall for the time that testing has been in place
unstable has been more stable in my opinion. Usually when unstable breaks
I don't know. I ran unstable once. It killed my whole system. There was a
fix, but only for developers, it was too hard for a humble desktop
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 03:24:09PM -0500, James Lindenschmidt wrote:
Forgive my newbieness, but it seems you are saying that unstable is actually
more stable than testing. Since I am primarily a user who wants a good
[snip]
I run stable on my edge servers, no X, no problems. For my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wednesday 21 November 2001 11:56 am, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 08:51:57PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
On Wednesday 21 November 2001 19:50, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
testing is not meant to be functional at all. It
is meant
19 matches
Mail list logo
